Good evening. The school committee spe special session, try saying that 10 times fast, of October 21st, 2025 will now come to order. This meeting is being recorded and will be made available for viewing on the Methuan public schools website. Would you please call the role?
>> Member Daglio, member Dunovan, >> present. >> Member Keegan, >> present. Member Maxwell, member Shabilia present, member Wlette and May Bogard. >> Here we have four members present which constitutes a quorum. So we are able to
proceed with the meeting. We need a motion in a second to accept the agenda for October 21st, 2025 as presented. >> So moved to second. >> Motion from the vice chair. Second is from member Donovan. Any discussion?
There's no discussion. We'll vote. All those in favor say I. I >> opposed. The eyes have it will now rise for the flag salute. Next is public participation. We don't have anybody present in the room. However, uh the vice chair will read
into the record public participation that was submitted via email. >> Good evening, committee. My name is Jade Jalbert, a resident and parent in Methuan. I apologize for not being there in person. I was not aware of this meeting until this afternoon and had
already made plans. Rest assured, I will be watching later this evening. Today's agenda is limited to policies. To that, I would like to say thank you for forging ahead on these. The community is thankful and we have commi that we have committee members concentrating on the work that you are doing and supposed to
do despite the many calls to pull you in other directions. Being here is important. We see you. We hear you. I did want to touch on the budget and staffing crisis that our schools continue to face. I am hopeful that this has not left your minds since budget
season is over. The staffing at the schools is more is more than in crisis mode. My upper school student reports that six times per week she is in the media center or the auditorium because there are not enough subs to cover all
of the absences of the teaching staff. This doesn't account for paras one-on- ones, BBEs, etc. I have also heard from other schools that due to lack of staffing and BBE contracts, students can be left unsupervised in large groups, multiple classes together for anywhere
from 5 to 30 minutes or more. To say we are in crisis mode is not even the tipping tip of the iceberg. Something must be done. I urge you to pay attention to this area so that you are aware of just how bad it is. It needs to be addressed. Thank you. Jade Jalbert.
>> So we received one message and uh that was it. Uh so at this time we'll close public participation. We'll also note for the record that we're joined by member Daglio. Uh if you cannot make a meeting for uh public participation in
person, you can send an email to SNS ciuan.k12.mma us before 300 p.m. on the day of the school committee meeting. Uh, moving along, I'll invite member Shabilia, who is the chairperson of the policy
subcommittee, to start the discussion with reviewing the letter from MASC field director Alicia Malin and then continuing with each section from that point. >> So, real quick on the letter, because we covered this in our last special meeting, the letter states the practice
in which the subcommittee took to go through the policies. uh it tells you how the notes were made and whether it designates it as a Mthuan only and MASC only or if our policy was outdated needed to be updated and they merged the
two. So with that being said if there's no questions on the letter we will move right in to section C. So, what I'll do, uh, just in keeping with the agenda,
um, we have the cover letter that you reviewed, we let's have a motion in a second to approve, uh, section C. This is the first read and then we can commence discussion. >> Yeah. And I and I apologize. I don't think I put the right language on the sheet. We just need to add approve
section C in form >> because that allows us to do it all at once, right? So, we're doing it all in form. Nothing is in place until we do the whole A through I don't know what the last letter section is in the whole project, but we accept all of them. So,
it's the inform. So, I apologize for that. I forgot to type that in. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. So, uh we'll have the motion be approval of section C inform. And this is the first read again. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> The motion uh is from member Shabilia.
the second from me uh vice chair Keegan and now we'll begin with discussion. >> Okay. So we start with section C. Uh the first one is section C is general school administration. Uh the cover page here
breaks down what this section is. Uh I won't read it verbatim, but it uh just again restates a lot of what's on the cover letter that Alicia provided. And then we have the uh index which we can run through and
that puts us into file CA administrative goals. Uh this is an MASC only. Uh they recommend adoption as an introductory policy to this section. So this is their draft unchanged by the committee,
>> going once. >> Questions, discussion. >> Going twice. Right. >> And we're on to uh the next page is CD which has been I'm sorry CB which
is ours is uh out of date and they recommend adoption of theirs. There was an update made. Uh this is regarding the superintendent and it was updated to reflect Mthuan in the report to the city council in time
for printing of the annual report versus the original language which was either mayor or select board so it aligns with our charter questions guys making this real easy. Um, now we
have file CB-R which is the appointment of the superintendent which uh MASC told us is redundant and they recommend removal. Then we have file CBD which is the superintendent's contract. Uh this is an
MASC only. uh they recommend removal of CBE, CBEA and CBG in favor of this version in relocation of other subjects to the superintendent's contract. Uh there was a big push in drafting to make sure that things were in the right
place. Uh historically we had a good chunk of operating procedures and policies which is not where they belong. We had some legal language and policies which is not where they belong in that particular sense. they belong in the contract. >> Member Daglia
>> quick question at the the end of this where it says the committee may choose to negotiate a successor contract with the incumbent superintendent. So basically when we go through the process of a new superintendent the
>> that's I think referring to like a renewal. >> Yeah, renewal. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> The point. But yes, I think that's the sitting superintendent versus a new one. >> Okay, that that was one thing I was confused about. I was like that's kind of weird way that the the the current
superintendent's negotiating the successor's contract. Okay. Thank you. >> So I took that to mean that a sort of like a bridge contract where if we were to negotiate with Dr. to stay for the first 90 days of the new person's tenure
to acclam. >> So just keep in mind that I my understanding is it's referring to a successor contract. A successor contract would mean >> say the next contract, >> right? >> Yes. And so that I think from what I gather
here that's referencing say you have an incumbent superintendent. The superintendent wants to continue to work for the district and then the next contract can be in essence this opens the door for renewal.
>> All right. Additionally, um this in particular says in absence of spec specific contract language and our superintendent contract language has language in it for a contract renewal um negotiation. So I don't think we'd ever
hit this part of it because we already have the language in the superintendent contract. >> Anything else? All right. Uh now we get on to CBE which is struck for removal per the last
note. Same thing with CBEA. Same thing with CBG. And then we get into CB I have a blank page. Um CBI
is the Mthuan version contains date specific. The MS MASC version is more streamlined and doesn't contain the procedural stuff and it was recommended that we have a open table discussion on the
evaluation of the superintendent. Um I know this has been a sticking point unfortunately for those who are stuck decided not to join us tonight. So, comments, discussion. >> So, we're not setting a deadline anymore
for when we >> Well, that's in the contract. That's procedural. >> Okay. >> That's This is policy. >> All right. I'm That's where I'm trying to separate myself from the procedure part from the >> policy. And it was it was tough because for a very long time we treated them
almost as one. So, >> so you're >> I I would also I'm sorry. I would also note that this this is the language um that Alicia wanted to make sure that was referring to the regulations. This is the language
that reflects the regulations. The details of the when and the how are in my contract and up to the school committee when doing the contract, which you may choose to do again, right? That was what I think that was when we had this conversation. And there was a lot of that that this reflects the
expectation of the law >> here which every school committee should have and then anything beyond that dates or process or anything that is incorporated in this goes more in the contract is procedural
>> if I recall >> and if I may add I think this is far more succinct it's very clear that we're addressing the standards of professional practice is established by the state which you referred to but um I think it will help us all moving forward of the
role of the evaluation of the superintendent. It's very clear there's no wiggle room and I very much appreciate the work done on this. I just have one thing though the only thing I have a concern about
now putting that the dates on the contract and I'm not just talking about the school committee. I'm talking about future school committee members might not it might not resonate with them and they might not set a date for goals on
the contract which then leads down this road of a possibility. So that's why I think when they made the policy previously to have dates was so that it the school committee also had to follow
that onto the policy. That's the only thing I have a concern with. Other than that, I like the clear. Yep. >> Did I >> I understand what you're saying. I'm just looking. I don't see any dates. Am I losing it? Oh, on completed by June
30th. Okay. That's the one date. >> Yeah. >> Did I miss that? >> No, it's in the red line, not Oh, the red line. Yes. >> Shall be completed. >> That's That's what I'm saying. The The thing about it is when it was a policy, it was held to then the school committ
It's still a policy. >> So that is our current policy. We never since I've been on the school committee have ever met a June 30th date. We do it over the summer when we're in recess. So um we don't even abide by that date
anyway. So that I'm in agreement to get rid of it because we need to make a a a schedule that actually works with the school year, with the superintendent's contract, with with everything else. And June 30th is not that date.
So I think to your concern, members, the reality is, and I think Mthun has seen this far more often, is public bodies are notoriously bad at managing contracts because it's not something we have consistent eyes on. But I think
along with the attorney's office, you know, now Macro and whoever it may be in the future, I mean, they're going to be negotiating these contracts. There's I don't foresee a time when our attorneys are going to say don't put dates in your
contracts for goling. So, and hopefully there will always be someone on the committee who has at least a little bit of legacy knowledge from the group before them. >> Very healthy discussion I think about
this. And you mentioned that this was a sticking point for folks who are not with us. I I thought that this was really important, this talk of policy. >> Well, it's funny how important works.
And on that note, file CCB, uh, previously titled line and staff relations, uh, now labeled staff relations. This is uh a title in gram grammatical change only um system change to district but this is our policy
unchanged other than those uh three red lines you have there in title and grammar comments next one file C administrative councils cabinets and committees remains uh this
is an MASC only uh it clarifies the difference between subcommittees and these other groups. Um, questions, comments, concerns. >> I think this is an important one
>> for us just the clarification for the school committee and the staff and the parent community to understand the differences between an advisory council, a task force and a school committee subgroup or a subcommittee. I think this one that's all I just want to make a comment. >> So I do want to call out you use the
word task force and that's not in here. >> Maybe it should be >> maybe this is something we pull back to add task force because we love a good task force in the city. >> I I mean I would actually say to you that it it uses the word cabinet and we don't I mean that could be a replacement for us to make that more methan
specific. I think task force is >> something that we would create that is not a would fall under the school committee subcommittee charter rules >> for example the facilities task force >> correct run by the mayor school committee members >> I mean I don't we don't use that
language I don't think I've ever heard any previous superintendent school committee or city council use the word cabinet as a group >> right I don't I don't >> maybe that's just a a simple replacement for us all councils task force
committees created by the superintendent recommendations. That to me sounds great. >> Um I would also say so it says functioning in an advisory capacity all councils, cabinets and committees created by the superintendent. So there are often times
where those committees are created by school committee request. >> So I would also make that change as well which I wish I had caught the first go around. So I'm changing cabinets to um task force >> and
>> yes Ryan >> tell me the second part member Shibilia >> um paragraph two first line uh says superintendent makes a recommendation for submission to the school committee through the superintendent.
I would modify that to show that these may be formed by recommendation of the superintendent or by request of >> or by request. That's what I want. Yeah. >> Member Daglio. >> So, um, someone actually approached me on an idea. Uh, but they did and we did
this at UMass Amherst. We limited how many subcommittees people can be on until everybody got uh, a subcommittee. it was kind of like requirement like maybe you should do a subcommittee where if uh if you're going
to be in office um and having like like someone that's on three subcommittees and four subcommittees of five it how productive is things getting done in all these subcommittees if two or three people are doing multiple subcommittees.
So what I know in the conversation with MASC did they ever think about limiting? >> So it never came up in our conversation during the subcommittee. However, I agree with you in the aspect it would be nice to see people get involved. >> However, you cannot force people to join
a subcommittee. >> I think this body has probably tried in >> certain several ways over the last two years. Um, so while I like where your head is at, I would worry that limiting a subcommittee creation because members are already on
other subcommittees may limit our functioning as a body. >> I I was I wasn't saying limiting the ability to form it. It's more limiting certain like individuals having like six
subcommittees. Like if it came down to it's like well can you be on three and then everybody else will ask and and then goes to that next member instead of how we just nominate people it'd be like hey do you want to be on the subcommittee like a better process of it
I guess what I'm saying I don't know it was it was something brought up with an idea I thought I could address it saying maybe limiting that getting more people involved but I get it like a lot of people don't want to be
on sub companies. But I was just thinking that was an idea that we might want to put in. >> So I guess my question then would be is that a policy or an operating procedure? And I don't >> that's a it's a hard line to draw.
>> I I think that's something we should ask Alicia and and and put that as a note. Um, I just want to point out that this particular policy isn't addressing subcommittees of the school committee. This >> this is this particular policy is addressing groups that the
superintendent forms that advise the school committee. >> So maybe that would be still if we go to subcommittee part and if they formed it, it's still we could put it in bold
policies. I I'm just saying that's why it like I said just have my little notes here and just >> right but something like this for instance like let's say the superintendent wants to make a buildings
task force that would make sense that Mr. Gosling is on that, >> right? And then let's say she has um a busing task force. Well, it also makes sense that he's on that one. And so to to limit who she puts on her advisory
committees doesn't necessarily make sense, right? Because certain people have certain jobs and they need to be in in everything quite honestly. I mean's going to be in 90% sort of things, right? So, I I'm not sure limiting who
the superintendent puts on her advisory panels makes sense, but I understand where you're going with the subcommittes for the school. >> Yeah, I I might have put my note in the wrong >> that might be section A. So, I might have You should have go back to that, but I can do that me.
>> All right, moving on to the next one is CFA. So the note here is CFA, CFC and CFD are all addressed in personnel section G. The MASC recommends that the next three documents, the next
three pages be removed from section C. Any uh any nays on that one? Now we're on to CH. This is uh policy implementation. It is an MASC only policy with a recommended adoption. Questions.
All right. We are on to CHACHC development and dissemination of procedures. This is an MASConly policy and they recommend our adoption. All right, on to the next one. CHCA,
approval of handbooks and directives. Another MASC only recommended adoption. And you'll note that these are uh unchanged blanket policies feedback. All right. And we are on to C CHD
uh CHD was administration in policy absence and uh the draft note here is that the policies are similar uh version is at the discretion of the committee. So you'll see on the next page is the MASC
version. Uh the one with the red lines through it is the Mthuan version. They are substantially similar. theirs just looks nicer but effectively says in my opinion the same thing.
>> So I guess the question there is do we want to go with the MASC version or the Mthuan version? >> Good enough for me. Um here we are at CL which is administrative reports. This
was Mthuan only. Uh while common to have reports, it's less common to have a policy on it. Administrative reports are placed on the agenda are best practice, not a policy. So MASC recommended removal. Any feedback
>> city should do that. >> Yeah, nice try that, Mr. Mayor. Um file CM, annual report of school committee. So the two policies are very different. Uh the school committee should discuss. They recommend adoption of theirs. Um
you will see that their policy only changes made or citizens to residents and town to city. >> So can we talk about this one? >> Sure. So, I think this one uh sparked some interesting conversation probably primarily from from me during this
conversation because um this is not something that we have typically done nor have I ever been asked to do it by any previous mayor. Um so I'm not sure right like if this is something that we uh are supposed to be doing and we highlighted the Massachusetts general
law so I reviewed that um then I think there we need to be in lock step a little bit about how what that annual report is. Um, I do recall, and I think I shared this with a subcommittee, um, I think in Mayor Perry's maybe first or
second year, he had asked for some information from the schools to add, I think, to his annual report. Um, but beyond that, I, you know, I've never done an annual report. Um, and so I just think there needs maybe there's just some conversation, you know, to do this.
Like I think we can do it. I just I'm not you know what the what time a year does that happen? I don't know those things here. So this was this was a little bit of a conversation with the subcommittee on how this should look. Is it a separate report just about schools that we're putting out annually but then
it's supposed to go to the city. So does it make sense to combine it? I don't know. Just some conversation I think between the city and the school department. >> Yeah. Something that this is just an idea that popped into mind. Um, and I saw that Michelle Woo, Mayor Woo did it down in Boston. Um,
she provides like a state of the city update every year and now she's actually planning on starting I think this fall a state of the schools update as well. Um, that's something that, you know, I don't know if we make sense to do it here
given the fact that, you know, we're always providing updates pretty much every meeting to the public, but it might make sense if we want to have something formalized. I'll typically deliver my update annually in the spring or early, you know, late winter, early
spring. So, if we want to time it with that, like not to set something in stone, but just a thought, >> just something to have on our radar, right? because this is a I think a combined effort on how we get this information out within the city and whatever we do to the city then goes to
the state right so just a conversation >> I also want to be clear that I don't think this is requiring the creation of new information >> oh correct oh I get that I I totally get that it's just what do we want it to look what do we create what information are we creating is it information about
the schools like brochure type information so it's knowledge right um about the schools. I think that is if I go back in my archives, I could I'm sure I could find what I presented to Mayor Perry. Um but you know, it wasn't it
wasn't like a chapter on each school. It was a these this is our district. These are how many kids we serve. This is the makeup of each school. These are the different kinds of programs. Here's where you can find information. It was more it wasn't like detailed information about suspension rates or, you know, it
wasn't that >> right. In my mind, this is something that would best be suited for us January, Februaryish because it's going to lay out the current status. >> Y >> number of students, number of out of
district placements, increased cost and busing, the increased rates from OSD and all of that stuff that the council and the mayor need to be aware of because budget is looming like a gauntlet. And that to me is what I would like to see
this become as a goal in the future. >> But >> I think this can become what we want it to become, right? >> Because it's pretty vague, right? Because you could look at this and say this could be the state of the union or state of the city address by the mayor who also discusses schools. It could be
the strategy for district improvement plan could 100% I have to I do have to give that to Desessie, right? Like, so that could be that here, but what do we actually want it to be of information we're putting out to the community for the purpose of putting information out
to the community? I think that's we have documents that we use and it's not for the purpose of information for the community. It's for the purpose of our work. Right. Anyway, but that's longer than I thought it was going to be. But >> member,
>> I I just have an idea maybe for the council. Um I know a minute um that that the mayor provides an update to the council about schools that may >> I think he does. Don't you
>> do you >> try to >> you try to okay because I've watched a few meetings and it's like >> it's school update maybe >> I haven't seen it on the agenda so I >> it's not a standing topic but he usually gets it in his mayor's report especially
when things are happening >> but sometimes the council meeting is also a dumpster fire and it's hard to get to any time. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So that brings us to the end of section C. So I guess we can move for the final
vote. >> Oh, >> first read. >> This is first read only. Yep. >> So I would just say >> so whenever you're motioning with the changes that I'm going to make with changing cabinets task force by
request. Yep. Do we have to make that motion because we're we're this is our first read. >> Well, I guess you don't actually change it for the second read, right? Correct. >> Right. Well, we could I mean, we could
we could simply have a motion to uh formally amend section C to incorporate the changes that we agreed to over the course of the discussion to memorialize that and have it be an official vote and have it be all-encompassing so we don't have to go through each thing that we
tweaked. >> Okay, >> does that make sense? And then we'll >> we're not removing any from this group this time. That would be the only change >> changing cabinet to task force, right? I think that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Yeah. So, uh, we have a motion to amend
section C to incorporate the changes that we agreed to over the course of the discussion tonight or today. >> So, moved. >> Motion from the vice chair, second from member Dunovan. Uh, any discussion about the amendments?
If not, all those in favor? >> I opposed. The eyes have it. So we'll officially incorporate those amendments that we discussed and we need a motion now to approve section C in form as amended. This is the first read again.
>> So moved second. >> Motion from the vice chair, second from member Donovan. Any discussion otherwise? Nope. Uh we'll vote then. All those in favor? >> Opposed. >> So the eyes have it and that's been
approved for the first read. Next, we need a motion and a second to approve section D. >> So, form we'll say, right? Um, officially in the motion. Again, this is first read. We have the motion from member Shabilia. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Second from the vice chair. Discussion. I'll pass it off. >> And here we go again. All right. So, if you guys can flip through all of the clean versions of C till you get to uh the index for
section D which is much bigger than C. So, we are going to start with DA. DA is uh an introductory policy um MASC only.
uh the version suggested uh changes the name from fiscal management goals to budget goals and objectives. So our current DB uh we were told that it was more appropriate to be DA. So they recommend moving the language and adopting MASC's DB.
>> I'm so sorry. May I interrupt for a second? Did you do a motion to accept section D in form? >> We did. >> Did I So who >> Oh, I wrote it down. I motioned it and member Keegan second. >> I'm so sorry. Thank you. >> See, we lost without Martha.
>> You're typing. I have to handw write this stuff. >> Okay. Um my one concern with DA, uh especially following last night's city council meeting is the reference to Munice. Um, it seems somewhat aspirational at
this current point in time. >> Yeah, I was actually thinking that too >> cuz if we were ever to change mun keep in mind is a specific product. Yeah. With a specific vendor. >> So it might not make sense to have a reference to a specific product from a
specific vendor >> in the language. Make it >> maybe more evergreen. Just a thought. >> Cut it out. >> Are we in agreement on that? >> Yeah. I I think we could just remove munice in the quotations because it it
doesn't add We'll remove anything from the actual sentence. >> So, you want to do amendment? >> Well, we do it at the end. >> We'll do it like we did the last one, right? >> Perfect. >> Okay. Hey, anything else on DA?
All right, on to DB, annual budget. Uh, this one does not have a note. So, the this is an MASC policy. Um, I I think that this should be reviewed. Uh because it's
budget, there may be references to the charter in here that the subcommittee missed. >> Member Zaglio, >> but do we also want because the the finance subcommittee now? Shouldn't we have the school committee should have
deadlines for the subcommittee to meet too with the finance? >> Well, I don't think >> for the budget. Just curious. >> I don't think you put those deadlines in a policy. Okay. Alicia did recommend that we have a um
overall school committee calendar for things like that need to get done. And she also recommended, you know, a budget calendar for things to get done, but those are outside the policy, right? It's just best practices and this is what we should be doing. And so we're
going to try to get that implemented, but it's outside of the actual policy. Yeah, hopefully that's something the new group can receive and roll with in January. All right. Anything on DB? DBC was budget deadlines and schedules
which is out of date. Uh they recommend the MASC version which is the next page. Um, we did incorporate a reference to the city charter in here. Um, and in my personal opinion, I think this is uh sufficiently ambiguous to
align with whatever dates the then superintendent and then mayor and caffo and whoever else have uh work out between them. Anything for DBC? DBD, budget preparation procedures is
out of date. Uh, this one is from 1989, originally from 1975. So, uh, go US some of us were still were alive at that point. >> Yeah, some of these policies were older than me. So, just just so you know, uh, August
1989, I was five months old. >> I wasn't even yet. >> I was four. >> Okay. >> I was >> Listen, enjoy the moment, Dr. Kuang.
>> All right. Budget planning. Um, we did add the language >> you see there in red. >> Mhm. >> So there was a conversation and there is a note at the bottom that the committees
advisory committees may take part in this. I guess in hindsight I guess I would be unclear as whether the advisory committee would be the subcommittee or a third party committee. um like a task force of sorts or a
cabinet remembered as ugly. >> I would just say that we're talking about budget planning right now, right? >> Yep. >> Yeah. I would want our finance committees to be that's it. I don't want anybody else outside that purview cuz
we're relying on our budget finance committee and the city council's budget. I don't want anybody else from the outside having their own little special committee directing those subcommittees. Okay. Is that But I thought you were talking about task forces and all that
stuff. >> Well, a task force doesn't need to be outside the administration. I think I think um I we all can interpret this differently, but I think there are groups there are advisory councils right now that exist
in Mthuan public schools >> that can give me feedback >> for budget planning that I would bring to the finance subcommittee to say like >> yes CPAC I'm you know Gan and I are trying to meet with them more frequently like what are they hearing seeing
needing right we have the um mental health advisory parent and student advisory council. There's there's some things coming out of that that may impact. So, I don't think it's it's outside of the scope of the school, >> okay, >> group, right, that would would impact.
>> I mean, that could be what this means, but for me, I think there are some groups within the school >> world, right? our school site councils. If we beef that up to have that be more impactful in a timely manner, then that would be another group that would impact some of our discussions on budget. So,
>> yeah. No, I would totally agree with that. It's just when you're reading it, you're like >> and you I think it needs to just be clear what that is what it's interpreting because if anybody else is misinterpreting it down the road again I always think about 10 years from now
what someone misinterpreting and saying well no I have the right policy to have something that could affect the budget the finance committees subcommittees but when you have CPAC and all that stuff that to me is yeah we would love to have
the finance subcommittee know what those groups need to have theirs. So I think that just needs to just be more specific. >> Could you refer me to the area that you're really >> No, that what he was referring to. I
>> So we're talking about >> the note. Okay. Over here. Okay. I thought there was >> a final The note is for us, right? So the note would come off in a final clean copy. The note is for us to think about what else would we h could incorporate
in this. Um, and I think if that's already part of it, there's no reason to have it >> part of the actual policy language. >> I agree with just leaving the policy as is >> not then it just incorporates what we do and the people who could impact the
budget. I agree >> with the bullets. >> Anything else? Okay. BDF uh was Mthuan only. Uh they recommend removal as it's covered in B
uh DBC and DBD feedback comments. Nope. Um this is DBG budget adoption procedures. uh not only is it out ofd
but is including the cost requirements for cost centers and budget authority they recommend the MASC version which you'll find on the next page u this is heavily MGL driven >> I just want to um comment on this just because I've heard some comments by
people that, you know, maybe the school committee should be seeing line by line um >> uh budget and approving each line of the budget as opposed to the cost center, which is
what the law is. And so we we approve the cost center level, not the individual lines underneath the cost center. So, um I think that's important to note and that's what the policy says.
Um just because I've been hearing rumblings about doing line by line budgets, um that is not in fact what this policy states and it is not what the laws in
Massachusetts state. Member Donovan, >> I have a question. So, there's a reference to town meeting in here. >> Is that I I don't understand why should we take that out unless unless we are changing
our form of government and we don't know it yet. >> It just didn't come out. I'm not sure. >> Do we want to strike everything before the red >> and then include that in our amendment?
>> All right. It should read authority for adoption of the final school budget bottom line lies with the city council. >> Right? >> So authority of for adoption of the final school budget bottom line lies with and then you'll strike everything
after that and just replace it with city council. >> Perfect. >> Okay. Now we are on to file DBJ which is budget transfer authority. This is an MASC policy only. They recommend
adoption. Uh certain posision provisions in this policy in this category may established by a city charter. Um so we may need to bump this up against our charter. This may be something worth having Ian and Maggie look at.
And I don't think we need to remove it now, but if we can make a note to have them look at it before the second read. >> Uh I would start with Ian and then potentially Maggie. >> Currently Ian comes to us to do cost center transfers. So this is our
practice. Um but we don't have a business offer officer's quarterly report. We get monthly reports. Oh, so yeah, that's right. No, that quarterly at the end of the third paragraph.
>> Yeah, maybe. Take a look at this one and make sure it matches our practice. Okay, we are on to file DD which is out of date and they recommend the MSC version on the next page which is grants proposals and special projects.
>> That's fine. >> So the note at the bottom, the district business office must have a state and federal grant manual with procedures aligned to state and federal law and regulation in order to comply with the state granting requirements. So we don't approve that because it's
not subject to the school committee. The administration should ensure such document is being followed. Yes, there's a joint one for city and schools. >> Perfect.
>> We use it to submit during our audits. >> Anybody? All right. Uh, DEA municipal chargebacks. Uh, this is Mthuan only and the committee should discuss. Um, this I
think is timely considering our budget uh situation from the last goound. I think that the policy I think this one should be maybe put on hold. Um the
agreement with the city and the schools for chargebacks for health insurance and all the other things is approximately what keep me honest is like 15 20 years old at this point. >> Um it may be worth evaluating.
>> Yeah. And another thing too, there's a reference here to the city auditor. We don't have that position anymore. >> This may be one that we could talk about with the finance subcommittee. Yeah, I agree. >> Okay, >> that's a good idea. >> So, can we refer this out to the finance subcommittee? >> Yes, you can. I'm doing that right. Delegating that to the finance
subcommittee right now. >> So, you know what we can do is when we um at the end when we have a motion to adopt the amendments that have been made over the course of the uh discussion. We can
also throw in there too uh including the referral any referrals to >> say finance subcommittee as part of that. >> I'm just trying to make my my motion notes. Okay. file DEEC
federal fund supplement not supplement policy. >> Is that is there a typo there? >> No, it's supplement >> supplant. Oh, I can read. Oh, boy. Look at me go. Um, >> which we that's just Yes, that's a law
that we have to follow. >> Okay. >> This is MASC only and recommend our adoption. >> I think Yeah. Okay. This this is MASSE only but it it is a a federal regulation to supplement not
supplant and >> I like better. >> Yeah. So uh we know which grants we have to do that with. >> Re anybody? >> Okay we are on to DFC
which is lease and rental of school facilities. uh facilities goes in section K and long-term rentals are unusual in the policy manual. So they recommend moving this to section K. Anybody against?
All right. Uh DFD admission and gate receipts. Uh this is procedural and they recommend removing from the policy. Anybody against? All right.
Authorized signatures uh file DGA authorized signatures. This is MASC only and they recommend adoption. Uh the above language implements a single signatory of district warrants uh which is a change in course from what
we do now. So we should be aware of that. >> Wait a minute. >> We added three I think to this because that's typically what we >> Oh, right. Yeah. >> That's what we do. >> I think she kept her note the same. But we I mean we can move it to one person
if we want to do that. >> Um >> my only concern about this three is that if we vote three and only three can sign and someone's not available then we don't have somebody. We don't have three
signatures. So and it says no other signatures is valid. So that worries me just a little bit that If we need three and we only have three, that doesn't
>> We need to have at least a backup. >> Can we have three in an alternative? >> I mean, think about it right now. >> There are only three of us that sign warrants currently. >> Four. So you >> Well, you sign them as mayor. >> The thing is, I think there's a docu
sign that goes around school. And once three signs it locks it up. >> I get I get the printed version, >> right? >> You do it the old school way. >> The old school way. >> But that said, when one of us can't sign it, uh, member Wulette will sign for us, right? Like
he he does do it when when he's asked specifically, right? So that's what I'm saying is like we have the three regulars, but we need a backup in case someone can't sign for whatever reason. >> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> No, no. I'm saying three members responsible. I get what member Keegan is saying. Like should should we change it to three members sign? Like >> any three members sign and then >> does it lock up? I didn't realize. >> Yeah. No, there are times when I try to
go because I'm in school and then I go in and I can't sign it because someone >> He'll close it. He does close it once he has >> But he Mr. Gin closes it. >> We'll close it once he has what he needs to so we can move it on. That's why I don't sign it because they get it >> during school time. >> But I mean I I have there have been
times when I'm at a funeral and I'm sure my colleagues have been in the same situation >> or or at Disney World which is better than a funeral >> but and we get a call. I'm I'm wondering we had some conversation about this and it doesn't it doesn't seem like it
warrants a long conversation but it's about the actual practice and right >> efficiency of the practice for us to keep the because we move at a fast pace right >> um I wonder if now that we are putting all the warrants on the school committee agenda for approval every month maybe it
does which is a which is a practice again that is everybody else does that and we're doing it does it makeense sense just to have a single signer >> like a lot of other districts. Do you know I don't know because this seems
very common, >> right? I think there was a little surprise out of our field rep who was like, "What do you mean you don't have one person signing?" Right? There was it's it seems common that there's one person who is the signatory along with the mayor and Maggie and me and Ian, right? like we all have to be
signitories on every single thing that moves out of the district and then we approve all of the warrants every month so everybody sees it and it's public right there's no >> there's no funny business in the signing it's public right >> so if we so if we are going to designate
one vote vote one person it should be the vice chair >> I don't disagree but that's >> right would it be that make more sense >> what if we amended the language to read as the committee will designate by roll call three members Um
>> I see that >> any of which are authorized to be the one signatory responsible >> had to sign it. >> No, we did it because that's the practice >> that was >> that was our conversation because we need three then the mayor signs it. We sign it
>> but there was no reason why >> change in the law. It used to be that you had to have that and then the law changed and said you could have one instead. They didn't go there. >> This body before my time
>> decided not to go with the one. >> That's correct. >> They wanted to keep the three. >> But we're all on the hook. >> Yes. >> No matter >> regardless of who signs it, every single person on the school committee is responsible for the warrant. >> Right. Okay. >> And you're absolutely right. It was it
was probably my first year. It was vehemently >> voted against having one signatory and I at that point in time completely warranted and completely understood. >> Well, well, I like um member Shabilia's suggestion. >> Did you write down what you just said?
>> Absolutely not. >> I think that makes perfect sense. If we have >> Are you ready to type? And I'll I'll >> Yes, I'm ready to type. Go. So, the committee will designate by roll call three members, all of which uh hold on. What did I say last time? It
sounded good and I don't remember. Um, three members >> which can't you say which can act as >> which one which which may >> be responsible >> signatory. >> All of which may act as the single
signatory >> responsible for act as the single. >> We need NFL replay tape. >> I got it. >> All right. >> And everyone's on the hook. >> Anybody else?
>> Here all night. Okay. File D C DG D which is credit cards. This is procedural recommended removal from the policy. Uh my question on this uh is how many
school credit cards do we have running around? >> So, we we I wish Ian was here. We actually keep all of our credit cards in the business office. Um the only ones that are really signed out frequently is the Home Depot cards for our maintenance and custodial staff. They have to sign
those out, bring the receipts, and it's all tagged to open PO for each building. >> Okay. >> So, there's a process for that. There are no no staff member in this district is carrying any school credit cards on their person. They have to come in, sign it out. We have a very clear process for
that. Um, we have a market basket credit card for consumables for FCS. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. So, um, and then, uh, I believe we also have a, uh, Walmart. Those are the three accounts that we have that people
can come and sign out with open POS for consumables and or products. >> Anybody else? I will double check with Mr. Goslin though if I didn't get those correct. >> I'm sure he's sitting at home right now yelling at the TV.
>> Sure he is. >> All right. Uh file DH bonded employees and officers. This is MASC only and they recommend adoption. Anybody? Nope. All right. File DI fiscal accounting and reporting.
Another one that is MASC only and recommended adoption. Um, given the nature, I would recommend sending this to Ian's office for review.
Or it may also may be so high level that the t the body doesn't warrant that. I feel like we already do this because it's so high level. I mean, we will receive periodic financial statements from the superintendent showing financial condition of the school department. We get that once a month,
>> right? >> Oh, I agree. I just don't want to >> Yeah. I mean, I don't see that this needs to go anywhere because it's so high level that it's what we do. >> All right. Anyone else?
>> File Dia, Accounting Systems. Uh, this one is out of date. Also covered by file DI and they recommend approval. Removal, not approval. Any comments? All right.
Uh, file DIIB is unexpired school department funds from previous fiscal year. So, this is methan only and we should discuss our current practice. Uh, as a note in our original materials, this was coded as DCE. So, they did
update our file labeling because we had it miscoded. >> This is something that I think would be smart to refer to the finance subcommittee. >> Great. >> Okay. File Die. Uh, this is audit financial monitoring.
This is uh out of date and they recommend the MASC version which is on the next page. Um this is their version. Not every district is subject to single audit
checks. Um they did note that this may there there is a reference to the city charter but it uh it may may need to be uh checked. And >> can I just I just have a I might need to
check a date on this, the September 30th date. If I could just >> So I know the student activity accounts, uh, we say 25 here. I know the high school is 50. Um, I think we should
mark that in the policy as appropriate because right now it limits us to 25, >> right? Because we had approval to make that one higher. Yep. >> Yes. Um, if we want to I know that that was a a thing for a minute. If we want to discuss changing it, I think now
might be the time. Well, all this says is that if an if the student activity account exceeds 25,000, we shall consider an outside audit every three years. So, I I don't think this is limiting us to 25,000. It just says if it does, then we should probably
consider um auditing it. So I guess this no longer So my my understanding previously was we were capped at 25. >> So now if these accounts go over 25, >> we we have a polic and I I'll find it
but there is an we had to go to school committee I don't know a few years I don't know it was during my time maybe to go have the high school be above 25 because of the sheer like just the prom alone. one event can bring it above that number
very quickly. >> So we did get an approval by the school committee to increase the high school only to have it be 50 I think before we moved it >> very recently. >> Was it recent? It was during my time. I just listen >> I was crazy about looking at those those boundaries.
>> So so there is a vote out there. I don't we we can look at this one to see where those match. I don't know if that's a policy or if that's a procedural thing that we have to vote to make sure there's an approval for it to be above a balance above 25,000 in the checking account.
So we can we can >> right but for this I mean this particular policy is talking about auditing it. >> Right. Right. Right. >> If it goes if for the accounts that are above we should consider an outside company auditing it every three years as opposed to the annual that has to be
done anyway because it's a student activity account and it It has to be done once a year anyway. >> So I'm assuming that we're auditing the >> the counts. >> We get audited all the time. Yeah. >> Right. >> So I don't know what that means by an outside because we only get audited by
outside. >> Do we do an outside firm every year? >> Is that correct? >> It's an outside it's a it's a it's a I don't even It was CBIZ. It was Lansen and >> Manson and Heath and Heath. Every year they come in and do our audits. It's an outside group that comes in and does the
city and school audits. >> They're at city hall now. >> Exactly. >> Right. So then this >> and they'll be at us next doing grant single audits. They'll be doing all the audits for us that we're required to do annually. So I don't know who the other outs is that a different outside group that we would get. No. Right.
>> No. It appears that this policy coming from MASC is saying that we're doing internal audits. We're required to do an internal audit every year. >> Oh god. We do we do external audits every year >> and every 3 years if it's above 25,000 we should consider an outside
>> which we're doing >> we're doing annually outside audits then >> and we're going above and beyond this policy already >> and the question is do we want to change the policy to match what we do or do we want to leave it this way in case we
decide not to use outside firms every year >> I don't think we're ever going to get away from that >> membership just mentioned um something about the part two of the audit for which would be the financial piece.
>> We posted the RFP for that. We only got one response from CBiz. So we don't have the RFP out there now. In order to fund that, that would be another free cash transfer and we don't have any specific timeline set for state certification of
free cash. It's not in the budget. So that's a question. And if we get the certification later this year, we would be able to do that. Like for this current fiscal, excuse me, for the prior fiscal year, we didn't get the certification till the first couple of
months of the calendar year. So that's kind of in flux. But >> but I'm assuming that because we are audited every year, we have money in our school budget to pay for that audit every year. >> We don't pay for the audits. >> Okay. I think the city does pays for the
office. >> I'd have to check. I'll double check, but we'll double check. >> We We can confirm that. Another thing, not to sound like a broken record. >> We're required to do it. >> This might be something else because when we meet with the finance, the subcommittee comes together, we're going to include the CAFO in that. And so, she's our point of contact on the city
side for anything related to the ongoing audits that we have to go through. >> So, this might be another topic for that subcommittee before we firm up anything here. All right. So let's let's we need we have more questions about this one. So I'll put this one on the subcommittee
finance subcommittee one too just to work out the details. Yep. The one thing that we are going to want to firm up is the question that has recently come up with on the city's u with the solicitor
about exactly which contract. This is something that has been kind of a sticking point. Um I mean I I like the idea of adopting the MASC version simply because I think this is a reflection of commonly
utilized best practices. Um, this might be a separate conversation, but this is this has been coming up between the city's legal department and purchasing folks.
>> I also because of the the the finance subcommittee, I feel like a lot of these policies fall in line with the finance subcommittee. Like I just don't know how much power we want to give that subcommittee. But but I just
>> Yeah. I just >> in the end everything comes back. >> Yeah. But I just feel like they have these policies kind of fall like purchasing wouldn't the subcommittee want to know what we're purchasing? >> No. >> No. >> But this is
>> this is all um these two here I think are not methan generated. These are mass purchasing procurement under Massachusetts general law. Right. Yeah, >> which is just the general outline. The details are going to have to be worked out between departments, finance, subcommittee, purchasing and school
department like it's not these two represent what's happening in 30B that we are required to follow. >> And something too that I should mention the thinking behind referring some of these things to the finance subcommittee. The whole thought behind
the finance subcommittee is for us to have that early and ongoing discussion about the budget, >> right? >> So, for example, you know, the question about chargebacks, that's something that's very relevant to the budget. So, that makes sense, I think, for us to
cover. when it comes to purchasing >> procurement, you know, I don't think that that's something that would >> fit well under the finance subcommittee simply because of the fact that we're trying to focus on the budget piece >> anything on DJ
>> that was that was missed opportunity guys. All right, DJA, purchasing authority. Another MASC only recommended adoption. And you will see that the only change made here was to add a change, which was
originally a town uh meeting to the city council feedback. All right. Then we get into DJ which is contracted services policy. uh Oz was out of date and they recommend uh the
MASC version which they label procurement requirements which is a basically a restatement of 30B feedback. All right,
DJ. That brings us to DJ-R1, which was bidding requirements. It's out of date and procedural, and they recommend removal. Argument against.
Okay. DJ-R-2, purchasing requirements for athletic equipment. Uh, this is procedural. All purchasing is covered by the same policy and they recommend removal. Anybody against?
DJG Muan vendors bids quotes. Uh this is out of date and they recommend removal. Uh DJGA sales calls and demonstrations they out
ofdate and they recommend removal. Just for funsies, the current practice was codified at this says in 1975. >> Joyce. >> Okay. Uh file DK payment procedures. Uh this is out of date and they
recommend removal. Argument against file DK their version. Uh specific details established by the city uh should be substituted for those in the policy above. Um
this is a it was modeled for a single signatory district. Uh so single signature on warrants which is what we codified in our policy a few pages ago. So I think we are
uh need to change the red line >> to match. Okay. comments, concerns. Okay. DKC, expense reimbursement. Uh the note is some language doesn't belong in this section. The language regarding students
that should be discussed. And then the next page is their policy and what they recommend for adoption. comments, questions, concerns, feedback. And last but not least, DM. This is
procedures for safe and responsible holding and handling of cash receipts. This is procedural and they recommend removal. And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the end of section D. So we technically because we're
discussing this, we have the motion on the floor from um the start. So I would recommend a motion to adopt uh the amendments that we've agreed to over the course of the discussion as well as uh combined with that um it
would be also a motion to refer anything that we determine to refer to the finance committee. We're going to do that. >> So moved. >> Second. Motion from membershibilia, second from the vice chair. Discussion regarding the amendment. All those in favor? >> I
>> opposed. You guys have it. So, we now need a motion and a second to approve section D in form with the amendments and referrals. Um, again, first read. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Motion from member Shabilia. Second from member Daglio. Any further discussion? If not, we'll vote. All those in favor? I >> opposed. The eyes have it. >> Uh, do we have any other business from the committee?
>> We have no other business. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Motion from member Daglio, second from member Shabilia. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. The eyes have it. The time is
6:17 p.m. and we are adjourned. >> Good night. Actually, it's more like good afternoon still.