So, I'll call the meeting into order here at 8:04 a.m. The school committee finance subcommittee. We will start off by um to the FY27 budget. I'll turn it over to >> Sure. So um I'm glad we were able to
hold this meeting today. Uh the last time we met um was the Wednesday before break. Our goal was to make sure that we got out the list of reductions in how we were going to uh meet the challenge of being about $1 million short uh with our
budget for up by 27. Uh after discussing that list uh with the school committee at finance and after getting some uh important emails and having some important conversations with folks over the last two weeks, uh it's really apparent that the way that those
reductions fell on folks was hard for those families who were uh sending children to us with special needs every day or or our families of color. it felt disproportionate to uh that body of people that we want to make sure that we
uh say out loud that we heard uh that we will make some adjustments to the budget in order to address that feeling and impact on those students uh and on those families. Um so I wanted to kind of start with that because we always want to make sure that we're listening. We always want to make sure that we're acknowledging what uh our families are
saying to us. So, this will be repeated again tonight cuz I think it's going to be important to make some decisions today. Uh, but also make some acknowledgements again. We may have a bigger audience tonight. Um, so with that said, over the week of vacation, I sent the school committee a list of data
um, uh, points that I want to make sure that we're all aware of and uh, and kind of talk about the rationale for our reductions and that updated rationale for reductions as well that we have to think about moving forward. Um, I also want to let folks know that we had a meeting with the elementary principles
over February break and we actually had meetings yesterday with all of our leadership team during the snow day remotely to talk about budget as well. These have been ongoing discussions and we expect these ongoing discussions to happen over the next several weeks before we come to a a final decision
about what the restorations will be and what the reductions will be and also what the use of the funds that we get from the town will be used for in relation to operating versus uh reserve accounts which I think is another discussion you want to talk about. Um so
big picture would like to um start to talk about the issue of we have $1,49,000 worth of reductions to make. Uh I met with Dick Milano, the town administrator last week. The $500,000 for reserves andor for supporting the operating
budget uh is still on the table in his opinion to be used by the schools. So I think we should talk about that. And yesterday I received a text from the town administrator that the health insurance expense for next year um is going to be reduced which means there'll be more funds available for operating
for next year. Uh it has not been determined how those dollars will be put back into the budget from a town schools perspective but it is money uh on the table that will be probably put in front of us as a school committee in a school department in a certain way to be utilized for next year as well. So we
have flexibility to move some of our reductions around. Uh we have some work to do around our thinking around reserve accounts versus operating. Um and that that's kind of the basis of our conversation today. What do we want to revisit? Uh what do we want to use for
reserves? What do we want to use to reduce this list of reductions? And if we do receive more money due to the health insurance, how do we want to have that impact the budget as well? Um so uh again wanted to start with the lead make sure that people feel like your emails and your calls have been heard. Uh we
are revisiting the reductions in a way that makes more sense and has a broader impact and not just a a targeted impact to folks who feel like uh that was a bit um a bit harder on their family. Um so the first thing I'd like to talk about with the group is the philosophy around
um do we want to start with if we have $500,000 of revenue that's dedicated to reserve accounts indoor operating uh I think it might be a good strategy and people can differ to come up with how much of that we want to use for both of
those pockets uh of revenue needs. how much do we want to think about putting in circuit breaker and how much do we want to leave to uh support the list of reductions and pull some things off that. Uh I did provide a document to the school committee that Mark put on the table that shows the options for circuit
breaker so the public can kind of get an understanding of what that means and what it looks like. Um Katie Blake is not here this morning. She is one of those people who went on a college visit with her child and got caught somewhere out of out of the state and is unable to be here today uh this morning, but she
will be here tonight. Um but just to give people a sense of how we want to approach circuit breaker and why it's important. Um we've come up with three different options. One is the current plan and then we have an option one and
an option two below. Uh, I want to put you to the right hand corner in the box that says revenue sources. Every year we get revenue from our federal um authorities. That's called IDA money which is about 1 million $300,000. We
get early childhood funds uh from the state. We get circuit breaker in chapter 70. Uh circuit breaker was directly connected to reimbursing us for costs from last year due to special education costs mostly out of district. Uh and then we get local funds uh to support
all that work. Um Katie uh does an amazing job of taking those three revenue sources and putting them together uh to expend throughout the course of the year in order to make sure that all those bills are paid. Uh any student who is out of district and any student that has deeper needs within the
district that's reimbured. We all we always want to make sure that we have the dollars available to do that. Um, we also know that it's good practice to have uh at least one year's worth of circuit breaker, which would be in this case $3.5 million in your budget to plan
the next year's budget with that in your in your accounts because it's a very volatile line. That's kind of what I've been bringing to the table this year. We started this year with $8,000 in this account because it had been depleted over the last two years when that account should have somewhere between,
you know, in my opinion 2.7 to $3.5 million. So we are trying to we have dedicated ourselves to the school committee, the sub finance committee to kind of build that up over time. The question becomes how fast do we need to build that up? what's the financial um
strategy around that? Especially in the conditions now that we face, which are reductions in staff. When we were doing this work in the fall, we thought we were rolling over 5.2% budget and any kind of changes we'd make in staffing would be done around realignment of the
existing level staffing model. come January 7 when we realize we have to cut money uh originally starting at 2.1 million down to now 1 million uh we still need to have a discussion about how do we want to fulfill this obligation these are bills that we have to pay these revolving accounts are very
important to the sustainability of our finance financial planning which is our number one goal this year um so I thought we would talk about this a little bit because I think it's been on the minds of some of the war committee members and select board members and school committee um because if we decide how we want to approach this then the
money that we have left over we can talk about it simultaneously how much money do we want to put towards operating and how much money do we want to put towards this account and how long will it take us to get to a sustainable level is it one year 2 years 3 years or four years so that's the big picture discussion is
am I holding the attention of the folks online and the folks in the room uh with this lead in so far any questions >> could I ask a Um, as we're thinking about it,
uh, recognizing that bodies change, you were here on an interim basis. Um, does it make sense to have a policy, a guiding principle,
whatever it is? Because to say our goal will be or the school committee's policy is and school's policy is that we will carry x amount a year's worth of certain burden year to year as opposed to um
that like so then it doesn't become this fluid >> correct >> convers because it can be some districts do this other districts do this that's great like what is our phil what's our policy how much we want to carry forward. So then if if it is that that we say a year like let's have a year's
worth moving forward and then I think then that conversation becomes what's the timeline for that again I'm very conscious of the fact that >> um that you are not here for the long term right and so
>> there I I think having that policy and then having the thought process around how quickly we want to get there is important to establish now so that it doesn't become a conversation every year and that it doesn't become arbitrary. Um, and so I think I don't know if
that's even like a step further back in the sense of having this conversation. >> No, I think it's a great conversation. I think what we said last week was and Katie and I talked about this percentage that we would we we think that we would recommend I would recommend working
towards at least 75% of what your circum breaker is for any given year. So that that's the amount. So if we were using 3.1 during these discussions in the fall because that was what our circuit breaker had been prior to years. Now it's 3.5. I I believe you should have at least 75% of your circuit breaker
carried forward every year. That's and if if that's a percentage that people agree to instead of an amount >> because the amount should be fluent with the amount that we're getting from the state. Um, if we say 75% 75% of $3.1 million was about 2.75%
of 3.5, which it actually is now, is probably a higher number. So, I think we should look at it by percent because that would be a good fluid in in growing way to do that. And I do believe that we should get there over a period of time. We were trying to get the district there. As you can see,
>> with the current three-year plan target, we were trying to get to 2.8 by the end of FY28. And that's what you're seeing in front of you. So, we would have uh we started with $8,000 uh the reimbursement that we got in the fall because we don't get that reimbursement until we're in the year.
That's the problem. You don't get your reimbursement until you're already in the fiscal year. That's why you should budget as best you can the year before because that number can change. That percentage can change and it's not all guaranteed. We then would use 2.4 of it this year and we would end this fiscal
year with $1.1 million. We would we were proposing initially to then start the next year as you can see in the screen with FY27 at 1.1 and then we receive we're flatlining the the circuit breaker 3.5 just for the
exercise in the assumption for this discussion and we would use 2.6 next year to to increase the balance at the end of FY27 to about $2 million. The following year the starting balance would be that $2 million. we would
assume 3.5 in circuit breaker which again is a flat number and we'd spend 2.8 in order to get to that sweet spot of what we were looking for which back then was 75% of roughly $3.1 million. So that was our original goal. We have two other options below that that we can
show that we could do it over the course of four years and we can also do it in a way where the full circuit breaker is expended which I would not recommend. So, and there's obviously iterations in between this that we can discuss as well, but I agree
100% that we should create guidelines andor a policy that makes this discussion not a discussion every year. There should be a fiscal system in policy that we have in place and adhere to like the town has free cash policies, OPED policies and other policies related
to their financial balance sheet as well. Uh, this just happens to be the one that impacts schools greatly. Yeah, thank you. >> Um, yeah, thank you. Just a couple of quick things, John. First, I just want to, um, just thank you for your remarks
at the beginning of this. Um, I think it's important that people know we take their input very seriously. As a public board, it's our responsibility to listen to community input um, and actually use it as data to inform our decisions. And so, just appreciate that you're you're
demonstrating that. And I think this this full committee does that every day. >> Um Amanda, I agree with you. And you know I two things. Um I think this four-year option one four years to target kind of
model and goal is um directionally where I'm comfortable. Um I think we should have a policy. In my mind, there's there's, you know, and maybe we we should look at other districts policies just to make sure we're covering our bases, but in my
mind, a policy on this topic has two parts. One is uh John, exactly what you said, a relative funding target, say 75% of annual expenditures. That way, it's it's moving every year. And I wouldn't
want a policy to tell us we have to be there at the expense of everything else. I think we need some flexibility. What I think the policy should have is mandating the committee to always have a plan and be working on a plan to fund uh to that target. Um and that that gives
us the flexibility to adjust our plans because the situation is always evolving. The the amount of money we have to work with is evolving. Our expenses change. Um but it does force us to constantly be striving towards that target until we meet it.
Yeah, Superintendent Failen, sorry, just real quick, Mark. Sorry. Um, you had asked how to think about the $500,000 and free cash that that that could be coming our way. I think I I don't um I don't have a strong opinion on like
uh exactly how we use every every source. I'm not sure I'm not sure how that how that works and and what's on the other side of the ledger. But I do think just this option one, four years to target is a good one. It seems like it would ask us to put $500,000 in
circuit breaker. Um so that could be just be a quick way to channel those funds. Um leaving us a little bit more flexibility with the operating budget and if we have a chance to continue to withdraw less from circuit breaker over the course of the year, I would want us to take advantage of that all other
things being equal. >> Sorry, Mark. Go right ahead. Yeah. Could I just can I just address one thing that I I don't think I said out loud that I just want to make sure folks understand is that when if we use option one as as an example, Nathan, and we do get down and we always have to be flexible every
year. This conversation should be held every year, not because we're redeciding the policy as much as we're evaluating the needs of the district and the needs of keeping pace. So that will always be a healthy conversation to have, but it shouldn't take more than 3 days or three meetings or 3 minutes to talk about. We
should always be working in conjunction and we give you these numbers are available all year long. So that's one conversation. We should always be monitoring this as a yearly discussion about how much do we keep in operating and how much do we keep that balance. However, when we get to a healthy balance somewhere down in FY29, we can
slowly pull back on that because there'll be more money available for operating once we reach the level that we need to have in place to feel comfortable. So then in FY29 and FY30 and 31 if we have an established balance and we're monitoring these funds well
year to year then we will have more money in operating uh by the nature of having the balance already funded. We won't be actively working to put money into that account. We actually have that account established. That's the second thing. Thirdly I want to say out loud that the money that goes through this
expenditure process as we pointed out earlier comes from federal money, local money and state money. The local money has to be spent by September by by June 30th of that year. So you can't put local money aside for the following year. That's not fiscally
available to us. The federal dollars have to be spent by September of the next school year. So we have a couple of months to spend money if for that federal money. The reason why we save the circuit breaker money as the targeted amount in the targeted uh cash
flow is because the state lets you expend that money through the following fiscal year. So it comes with the greatest flexibility. So that's why we're using those funds to be able to hold for the following year because it's the only one of the three revenue streams that you actually have a full
year after to expend and and and do so in the best interest of the students that you serve. So um I don't want to get too in the weeds, but um we do have again we start with local money, federal money, and state money. The state money has the best flexibility. That's called
circuit breaker. And that's why we use that term and that amount of money uh to hold back because we do have flexibility to spend it over two years. Um and this should be a discussion every year to the point where we say are we meeting that 75%? Do we have a healthy balance? Did
these expenses go up dramatically? Is our circuit breaker reimbursement now $4.2 million? So we're we're overpacing ourselves. We're good. But that monitoring should be done every year. It's a healthy conversation to have. Um, and I think that it will be a healthier
conversation once we get the balance up to a point where we all feel comfortable that we have uh a mechanism and a sustainability for that funding cycle and expense cycle that we no longer have to pay as much attention to it and it's always there for us to be able to lean.
>> Can I ask a quick question then? So with respect to the 500,000 from the town, which bucket would that fall into with respect to when it needs to be spent? So if you put it into if so if you put it
into the say it went into the >> it will go into the special education line of our local budget, right? >> And it will be expended first and the number so which would then correspondingly let us not use as much circuit breaker. Right. So the circuit breaker number would look like it was
staying high because we'd have to use that local money first. >> And can you carry and this might be but if say it went into a special education >> stabilization >> stabilization does that
>> because it's a stabilization fund can then that carries >> at the town level. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That just stays in that account that's like a separate bank account essentially at the town level >> just like it. So that can carry then that doesn't >> that that can carry but remember when we put that money there >> then it's not
>> it it has to be accessed on under certain conditions one time exempt situations it has to be voted by the school committee and the select >> it's more restrictive >> yeah I just didn't I wanted to make sure I understood in that there were any of that time location
>> and what what most districts do well districts do a lot of different things to get here and to try to maintain a fiscal responsible way to approach this work. Some people just put sometimes put an amount of that money in there just for just for the break the glass moment and it just stays there $500,000 forever
because hopefully you're managing it on the school side and you don't need to crack that glass to grab those dollars in case something really big happen. So, no one really contributes to that as much as they have a balance there. if you don't have a school district that's carrying their own circuit breakers some
um budget. Some towns have the the town carry all of it and that's just a different philosophy. So I think someone brought up the conversation with Welsh which I haven't looked into. Welsley has the town carry all of that money in that account. So the school doesn't have to
worry about the ins and outs. That's where all the circuit breaker is. They just fund this the use of three funding sources just differently than we are thinking of using it. Um, I am used to using it in the way that we're projecting on the screen. Katie is used to using it on the way that's uh
projected on the screen. And if we do want to add if we ever had extra free cash in any given year and all the other needs of the district in the town were in good shape, putting money into that separate account for that break the glass moment would be a good thing to do
because it can be carried in a year. Um I'll just say I totally agree the point about policy. I'll say we we started those discussions in December on revolving account policy in general which included circuit breaker. Um the goal being this year we want to set that
policy right because those were utilized in ways that you think require should require more oversight um in past years. And so establishing that policy both to make sure we fund these long term is is good and just make sure that school committee has awareness and oversight of
those those accounts um when we need to draw them down to kind of the levels we we unfortunately needed to in the past. Um so I totally agree with that and hope that once we get through the initial budget development that is the next
thing on the finance committee's kind of charge I think is to go back to that discussion and establish some post policies then bring back to the full school committee to to discuss and hopefully vote on. Um in terms of the
the scenarios here I think I agree with uh members who stated like option one here which really I guess is option two if we think of the baseline as option one but yeah this option one scenario would increase our utilization circuit breaker by 400,000 right because
it's changing it from three from 26 million which is the baseline to 3 million >> that still gets us to a good place in four years um and this does not include the 500,000
free hash, which would change these numbers even further. I think that's probably I think we should make a decision not expecting the free cash because I think there's just been some statements from other boards
around conditionalizing the free cash based upon exactly what we do. And so I I think it's to me a essentially a glass ball. Like I'm not 100% sure if deciding option one if they'll still give us the 500 free cash or they won't. I'm not sure. So I I
guess my thought is the school committee should make a decision separate from the free cash and then you know still advocate for the select board that they provide the free cash to um support the building of these reserves um as they kind of you know the town administrator at least indicated he he
was uh interested in in doing. Um, but I agree. I think this gives us more flexibility within next year. It still provides us from Katie's scenario. Um, a robust balance after a 4-year period that gets us kind of close to that 75%
mark. And then again, hopefully within 5 years, we get closer to maybe 100% mark. But again, whether or not the 100% or 75% of the goal, I think it's a future kind of conversation. But in either scenario, it kind of gets us there within the four to five years. I worry a bit about flexibility. we have in future
years with additional funding. Like I I think the funding constraints that the town has are things we're going to see in future years. And so I think we might need additional flexibility here to save positions in FY28, FI29
if we assume our circuit breaker reimbursement will go up, which is again Katie's kind of using a flat number here, which I think is helpful, but I I just would flag that that gives us a little bit of additional flexibility in future years as we're thinking about how
we build this up um to say, hey, we could increase our utilization FY28 slightly more than 3 million because the circuit breaker reimbursement was went up by an extra 100,000 200,000 whatever it is. So that that's another thing that I like about this scenario is that still
provides us a bit more um flexibility as we think about uh future budget challenges for the school park as well. And and I'm I'm assuming that the discussion about the you know we talked a lot about at this table during January. Let's try to shave down the
impact on FY27 and let's start to really dig into this conversation about what the long-term outline is for the town and the schools for what the percentage increase can be. Uh it certainly cannot survive on 3%. uh it needs to be more like four or above.
Uh the average to Mark's point uh at the last meeting uh that we had with the select board members president was between five and a half four and a half seems to be where Massachusetts communities land with school budgets. Uh I think what we're seeing as I read and talk to colleagues across the state is
that a lot of people are starting to have to pull back some of the spending that they that they've had. Welssley's reducing. Uh you can look at some districts that traditionally have had high performing districts that are now pulling back a little bit because of budget constraints and others that are really suffering a lot more uh whether
they're small rural districts in the western part of the state or Milton Welley and uh any other town that would be considered high high achieving um and that is a worry of mine moving forward. Um, and so
with my task when I met Lizzy in a coffee shop uh back in April or May was fiscal sustainability. How do we make sure that we try to create systems where we're not doing this every year? And we didn't even think that this year would be the year that we had to start talking about it.
we were really thinking that we had two or three years to begin to talk about how to restructure our budgeting so we had a good sound balance sheet for the next person to come in. Um and I think that that that continues to need to be a conversation on two sides. One side is
encouraging and moving that percentage higher that we do need more than 3% a year to make the schools work because we operationally cannot continue to move forward without reductions if we don't. and um and also really think about how
we're utilizing all of our staff and how well we need to create how we need to create systems in order to have every single staff member we have be included into a system that works for kids. And right now we in my 7 months in the
district I'm observing the need to re revisit some of those systems to make sure that every resource we have goes to the classroom is connected to kids to the classroom and if we look at our philosophy sustainability and then tier one
instruction uh we really trying to focus on the classroom first. Some of the reductions that we have proposed that I think that we should keep are reductions that connect to teachers but not necessarily to students in the classroom. Support positions of teachers like the 504 person that work can be
redistributed. Uh some of the academic testing work that work can be redistributed. Um, but certainly the BCBA work is a concern because BCBAS are directly working with students in the classroom as well as being consultants and we if we want to change that system,
we'll need some time to do that. So, uh, and students shouldn't suffer while we're figuring it out. We should make the system first and then and make sure that whatever we want to do differently, we can do more thoughtfully over the course of the next year. So, uh, we are focusing on the classroom first. We are thinking about sustainability
and and when I think about sustainability, I got a table from Amy Dexter uh that every town meeting we show what our increase in U FTEES has been. And uh we have added 76 staff to
the Milk Public Schools in the last 5 years. That's a lot of folks. And all of those folks are working hard. All of those folks have something to do. They're doing the best they can, but I couldn't say as your district superintendent that
they that we as administrators have workflows and systems that make that those roles as effective as possible for children. So, we really need to assess all that um while we assess what the fiscal sustainability can be because
that's where 3% and 4% of your budget increase intersects with how many staff you have and what kind of systems that you need to have in place for kids. So you can't talk about one without talking about the other over time and and Ker and I are dedicated to make kind of that
recommendation at some point either at the end of this year at the beginning of next year when you are getting ready to hire a new superintendent. What are some of the things that we feel are working? What are some of the things that we feel are works in progress? So then you can start thinking about your candidate in a
way that has experience in certain parts of the educational leadership work that would highlight the things that are the needs of the district. That's our that's our two-month commitment to the to the district. Um
I think uh it'd be helpful if we had kind of agreement on if option one is our path because then I think that helps inform the next step which is going back to the kind of the productions list and discussing how we further revise that before bringing that to the full
>> tonight. Is there general agreement from not just finance members, but the other two school committee members are on the call or other questions they have around kind of the option one as presented by John and Katie? >> Yes, Emma.
>> Um I appreciate um the explanation and the rationale behind option one. So I'm comfortable with that. I think it does provide us the most flexibility. Um, so and I definitely don't want to get into option two. Uh, so I I'm very comfortable with moving forward on that
one. >> Same. Um, I I guess I I would just put a little asterisk next to my uh endorsement, which is that I I agree with the principle of option one. I think I'm open to some fluidity on the exact numbers. Uh just depending on
whether titrating up or down 10 or $20,000 allows us to um add back a position we'd really like to add back or if it's like, hey, we can't do that. Let's go ahead and add a little bit more into the revolving account. So just with that uh caveat, I
I'm I'm in favor of recommending this to the school committee. >> Totally agree with that uh caveat. Thank you. >> And this is Lizzy. I agree with what you just said, Nathan. I'm in that same place.
And I'm happy there's school today. Uh but I'm sorry that I can't participate more fully because I'm doing school drop off. Sorry. >> I have tonight as well. Thank you for being here. Um all right. Well, with that, uh I think general agreement
understanding reductions list by reductions list. So this document shows what we've highlighted uh within the the uh reduction list where the depending on the amount of money that we choose to expend back on the list. Uh the orange
indicates uh what we would uh initially what we recommended at the beginning of uh the vacation week to put um to take off the reduction list which would be restore the debiv director uh from 6 back to 1.0 O uh
special educator at the middle school and the two full BCBAs um and the English teacher. We did have a meeting with the elementary principles over break as I had mentioned in another full leadership team meeting yesterday during the snow day. Um, and we do
believe that uh the the enrollment uh in the uh English department at the high school is something that we could probably put that reduction keep that as a reduction and and maybe expend those dollars on something else we might want to bring back. Um so that that could
come off that that could go back onto the reduction list if needed. uh the special educator at the middle school uh the role has a significantly low number of students it's impacting. So we discuss whether we start to use that and
look at it differently for whatever high school need might be there an elementary need that might be there. So we could always take that off the list and just repurpose it if we kept if we took it off the list. It might not end at the middle school might end at the Tucker. It might end up being split between the
high school and Tucker. Um but um so we but we would keep we would take it off the reduction list and the BCBA discussion about uh not wanting to move faster than uh we have systems in place. Uh the the elementary principles
understood uh the need to kind of restore uh the positions as well as the middle school and high school principal. Uh they think that the format that we put in place with just four is doable. uh that if we added a fifth it might be helpful. So only reduce one instead of
reducing two. Um but this really resonated with our families. Uh these these individuals are really close to the students and families that they work with especially in our subsequent programming. So you know we we could absolutely bring both of those positions
back and and do a more full you know dive into what the systems look like and what that should be for next year. So we could, you know, continue to think about taking both of those off the list or at least one of them off the list for sure. Um, so repurpose a special educator for
the middle school. Um, uh, you think about BCBAS, either take one or both of those, uh, off the reduction list in the DEIB director. The English teacher, I think, can stay on the the on the, um, on the reduction list. And we also had some positions down below that we talked
about as well. I'm not sure what people's appetite is. And the reason why I wanted to kind of get to a number is because I didn't I want to kind of put some parameters around how much did we want to uh how much how many dollars did we want to put back into the mix of restoring
positions uh as a way just to have a you know perimeter around the conversation. So, right now, are you looking for feedback on the potential um positions to add back? >> Yes. So, right now, if I could change that sheet, it would be I would take off
the list in orange. I would take off the list the DEIB director, restore them to full-time. I would put I would keep on the on the reduction list the English teacher. I would take off the list of special educator because we could use them at the PS or at another building
and I would take off the be the two PCBA. So that would total uh you know 5678 156 would be somewhere >> 285 290 almost $300,000 >> which is still $100,000 less than the
change discussed previously or sorry BCBA you would want to keep both BCBAS not reduce that by one >> I so we have >> so when I listen to the principles and the people who are doing the work, they could reduce one and feel like they're supported in the work and get done. When
I listen to my families and say my child really depends on the service, uh I would lean towards, you know, pulling both off the list and then make that recommendation next year with a lot more study and a lot more thought. So, um I
think it's easier to to remove them both off the list and keep them and leave everybody as harmless as possible while we figure it out as opposed to to taking the chance of doing two or one. So, I'm hoping either way with one or two and that's the feedback that I got from the
LEA team and I'm just expressing that feedback for the leadership team. I appreciate for for the two of them think for both for the BCBA's as well as I would say for the DEIB position the conversation
around systems and losses processes um I think with respect to BCBAS it sounds like it would be a shift in sort of um the way that it's done. So I
know that some it's a consult model model, some is a direct service model and if we are moving >> I think in some cases there will always be a component of a direct service model but if we're moving more to that consult model I think that takes time and teaching and sort of almost making
others aware of and increasing their responsibilities to take that on. So I think having that time to to do that is important. I think there's been a lot of conversation about the DEIB role and
recognition that there have been several people in that role. And I think for me personally recognizing that it could be a structural or a process issue and that work needs to be done to improve that
and figure out ways to maybe tie it more to systems within the district. uh groups that are taking place within the district and give that the opportunity with that kind of a fresh look would be important as opposed
to um pulling it off or reducing it. I think by reducing it by point4 you sort of cut the legs off the position and I I don't know I don't know how you do that with a with a partial piece and I think that there's work work that still needs to be done but figuring out how to
connect that I think will be very important. Um, so I agree with give time for the BCBAS and and get to that place. I think what I'm hearing across the board on things is I think there are going to be bigger discussions in the
coming year about process and structure and and all of that which I think is important but I think that that work needs to be done before. That's just my impression. So I would say even if people say they're comfortable with the workload with two be with one, I would
lean towards two and and and know that we've done the work to make sure that that reduction can happen if there's people. >> Sorry, that's a great question. That's okay. >> I think it's I think it might be a good
time to interject this conversation uh which is in the fall and through before we start to have to work through potential reductions. And again, Kyler and I are working as active interimm folks as well as kind of consultants in the way that we're just
trying to give everybody a a higher level view of what's working, what's not, so we can leave the district with some systems in place, but also a map of what things need to be really addressed significantly over the course of the next few years. Obviously, the financial pieces are one that we're we've already
addressed systems. We've already right sized ours how we're working in terms of how we're accounting for all the money which I think people were worried about before I arrived and Katie's done a great job with that. But the two big areas that impact exactly what we're talking about right now for reductions
is the district does not have a functioning MTSS process. And for folks watching this, MTSS is a Desi um sanctioned uh process for identifying the needs of students, whether they're
academic needs, therapeutic needs, or or student learning uh IEP student needs, and having a process that the district goes through where everybody's trained on how that works, where you talk about children, talk about what they need, get the right people in the room, and then
if it's a regular red service delivery like math intervention, then you would have it. If it's a mental health uh service delivery, you could get an adjustment counselor as part of a 504 or maybe part of a u part of an IEP or maybe just as a as a service delivery
for a child, not on any kind of plan. But there's a system that everybody walks through and that the school district and every school building is trained in the process. So there's data used, there's discussions held, there's questions asked, there's, you know, time
periods where students get something different to see if it works, and then maybe you add something more. Maybe an intervention that's a regular red intervention works for a child and they don't need to go on an IEP. So this the MTSS process I think would really be the best thing the district could introduce
over the next three years to really put a system in place in order to identify all the different needs that kids have in all the different service deliveries that we would want to provide them that would then inform what kind of staffing levels you need for each one of these positions in order to meet those needs.
because adding people without a system does not necessarily mean that it's impacting children in the way that you had intended when you hire that position. The second big chunk of work that we have to do in in the in the district is the restorative justice bias
and culturally responsive teaching work. I believe the district had done some of that work with leadership a few years ago. uh but they didn't do it with the full district and again that's a commitment of two or three years worth of professional development that's every teacher that's you know administrative
assistance it's D etc being you know really involved in hard discussions about race access um you know culturally responsive teaching on the teaching l end and curriculum but
also just people's awareness of how bias impacts tax teaching and learning for kids and that's just not meeting with your principles and then putting it aside. That's actually embedded PD that I think everybody should really go through and also all your new teachers coming on board should have some sort of
a a point of um time where they have to take a course and be involved in that and we're actually trying to add that to our contract negotiation. So those are two big chunks of work that the district should take on uh because it actually speaks to some of these reductions, right? So if we have a better system of identifying the needs of students then
maybe that would that system uh would yield maybe we only need five BCBAs after we've gone through that process and etc. And so, uh, that will be part of the recommendations that we make, uh, to the district. And you would want to think about hiring someone who has
experience in both of those, uh, areas because I think that those are globally incredibly important professional development needs that the entire district would want to go through and become more aware of um, and experience those in order to have a better informed
uh, faculty and staff when we're addressing this need. Um that will be part of our recommendation moving forward. >> Nathan. >> Yeah. Um thanks Mark. Uh Superintendent Vilen, thank you for kind of walking us through
the some big sort of strategy. Uh you mentioned MTSS and and restorative justice work. So it's a big multi-year strategy that has to be thought through and executed. Um,
I just just to re I'll I'll respond to that by responding to to the potential adbacks here. I I think I I agree with uh Amanda's comment on the DEIB role in the BCBAS. Um, and I think it's even
more true given what you just said. if we're if we're anticipating that we need to develop and execute strategies related to MTSS and and restorative justice, I think trying to hold back some of those resources um now will give us more flexibility to to be able to do
that more effectively. Um I think I feel more I think you mentioned you would probably not recommend adding back the high school English teacher and maybe there's an option for the middle school sped teacher. I think I feel more ambivalent on on those roles and we kind of defer
to you and Carla. I don't I don't think we should go hunting for students to justify a role like the middle school sped teacher. So I think I think if there's a solid rationale for it and a need and we feel like we can afford it
then okay. But um but I I I sort of defer to you on that. And I I I also I just think it's important, you know, if we're looking at um you just thinking of a couple of structural financial things here. If we're looking at potentially next year a 3 to 4%
growth rate and the year after that a three 3 to 4% growth rate. Um number of these roles could be back on the spreadsheet next year. Um, and you know, the two BCBA roles, I don't know if it's these two, but there were two BCBA roles
that were added that were paid for with one-time funds that were baked into our permanent operating budget. The DEI role is paid for out of our bottom line. Um, you know, these are only hard choices at this stage. And I don't think that I
just I just want everyone and feel free to argue with me, other folks on the committee. I think it's important that everyone watching this now or tonight understands that um we're we're finding we're finding a way to make this work this year, but it's it's not there's
like no promise for future years. >> Lizzy, >> hi. Thanks. Um yeah, I just wanted to take the opportunity to um appreciate what you were sharing, John, around the goals um to strengthen MTSS and the
importance of um as you had mentioned building the systems and others are affirming building the systems um including to support our work in DEIB. But going back to the beginning of the fall when we
were talking about goals, you know, it's this recognition that yes, I think we need to think about it both end. We need to preserve the capacity um that is really dedicated to um improving our outcomes around DEIB.
Uh that's the conversation we're having here now about the potential adbacks on the reduction list, but also uh maintaining the focus on embedding that work across all leadership of the district. There's accountability for
improvements on DEIB outcomes that belong to everybody on the leadership team. Um and ultimately to all educators and employees of the district. So, I really just wanted to underscore and appreciate what you had said there. Um,
and to also take this opportunity to recognize something I really appreciate in the approach to the budget this year, which I think understandably there's been a lot of focus on the reductions because that's a such a challenging element of
this process. But the realignments that have also been proposed I think um are so important and for example the way that um you've proposed you know creating that full-time
director of HR position that you've already taken the step and the school committee has supported the step of creating a full-time assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction. These are not roles that Milton public schools has had, but we've
recognized the need for it for years. So, you know, these important shifts, I think, have not really gotten to me the attention they deserve in the conversation. Um, because I see those
two examples of these two positions as really um, you know, strengthening our capacity to support our DEIB work in important ways. While I do agree it's a good thing to maintain the um you know
the the position that um directs a lot of the specific efforts uh to support as you were just talking about the PD and so on. But you know again that's also work that a full-time assistant superintendent curriculum instruction
will have some ownership over. Um, and when we had a person who split their time half on HR, half on curriculum instruction, that capacity couldn't really be there. So, um, you know, just
wanting to appreciate the strategy through that lens as well. >> Thank you. And and also the the the adjustments in and as well as the hiring backs. I think the MTSS work in the work around systems in the student support
area by adding back the position that we did not fill of assistant director of student services that's a big role that impacts uh student mental health uh adjustment counselors uh all the different types of support services that we're we're discussing that need improvement in systems. we need that
position back so we can have administrative support to help set those systems up to help you know facilitate that as well as help support the teachers as we grow the PD for those things. Uh and also putting back things like the the the team uh team chair at
the middle school high school which we reduced uh continuing to support the Tucker with the added um uh resources that we gave them this year and moving them into next year not pulling them back but making that part of their ongoing budget for grade level facilitators for all schools and adding
back two of the um of their uh team chair as well. Um we are trying to think systems based uh Lizzy. So thank you and it does I don't think our DEIB work should rest on any one person. It should be embedded. It should be institutionalized but there needs to be
accountability and checkpoints by somebody. Uh and that's why that position is important. Um that's a cabinet level position that can have a higher view of the work uh that we're trying to do across a lot more a lot more folks. Um I do just want to just echo what has
been said already in terms of you know the positions that we're thinking of you know adding back making full-time um and so on and so forth as well as um the thought that went through um went behind um went into figuring out what makes
most sense um with our current budget constraints. I do also have concerns with what Nathan mentioned with using one-time funds to bring back these positions and what position where would be we be next year with that. Uh but um
if there is a way to make it work, great. Um I support the um the um positions that we're thinking of bringing back. I do want to make sure that you know um there is you know if we are working on creating systems that
there is kind of a time frame and accountability um that goes into it. You know I I I would hate to have positions you know in that are not really showing results and we kind of keep looking at the same data year over year. So I do want to see some
movement in those areas and um just positive outcomes. Um so um but I I think overall this is great but I would like to just kind of um help I would love to understand better um what you know when we're using this potential
$500,000 how that would work um for next year and so on and so forth um for these one-time funds. >> Anna, do you mean the $500,000 of free cash? >> Yes. that. So those are not uh proposed
to go towards positions per se. That is funding that the town administrator has proposed and again it's not 100% clear if the select board or committee support it uh fully but uh that the town administrator has proposed giving to the
school committee school department in order to build up the circuit breaker reserves. So just that those funds would not directly go towards supporting. >> Okay. >> So then what about like how would we
fund the positions that are currently in orange? >> So we would utili we would increase the utilization of the circuit breaker funding >> from that the current the baseline plan of the $2.6 million to kind of the $3 million. It's as what we discussed in
that first option. And that is recurring fund in that we get reimbursement from circuit breaker every year. Again to John's point you made earlier the exact reimbursement level is not known each year. Your reimbursement could go down because your expenses go down in a year. The reimbursement could go down or would
go down if your expenses went down. So the the exact figure of the reimbursement is not always known, but that's true for townwide revenue as well. We don't know obviously always know what our townwide revenue would be, but it's still uh recurring revenue. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> I I I want to note too though um to the point of one-time positions of the list that we provided and we want to put on our website after we go through the meeting, 15 of the positions, 15 of the 75 positions that were hired over the last five or six years were originally
hired with onetime funding. That doesn't mean that they all have to be the ones that automatically come back out. And it doesn't mean that the last position high needs to be the first position to maybe be reduced over the next few years, but it certainly needs to be looked at as terms of uh we need to just reassess
what the needs of the district are. And we need to acknowledge that adding 75 folks, 15 of whom were were added with onetime money that have been absorbed. when that when that push comes to shove financially, we need to, you know, we're
slowly getting away from the fact that these are one-time positions because they've been embedded. It really will come down to over the next few fiscal years with, you know, our work on the next budget uh next year, but more importantly, the work moving forward is of all the positions that we've added, which ones do we really need, which ones
fit into systems that work uh while we're trying to push that up against and what we can afford. So I wouldn't necessarily say if if that BCBA was onetime money it has to go as much I'd say is do we need that BCBA and if we do then we keep it but it might have to be
at the expense of something else over time because now everything's embedded into your into your um yeartoear operation budget that might be where the district gets to and I would predict that it will get to I mean we will be in the situation for the next few years
where we may have less money than we have expenses and we will need to make these high choices over the next few years. Other questions uh comments folks have around the proposed
changes to the reduction list which again I think just to be clear are remove this uh the DIB director and remove this uh these three roles with the department of showing and then
that is um you all mention >> roughly $300,000. Yeah, roughly $300,000. So that fits within our the $400,000 kind of adjustment we made. Um Nathan, >> yeah, I have a I don't know I don't know
if we're I don't know if this question can be answered in the meeting. Um because I don't know if we have all the information yet, but I have I have a question that's sort of a variant of what Anna was asking. um which is there's an assumption in this
conversation that we will receive half a million in free cash to to support special education reserve accounts in some way. I guess that decision has not been made and it's not clear exactly where you know there's a couple of
places that that money could be channeled to. um either the circuit breaker account or the special education stabilization fund. Um I I guess I'm wondering how like okay
let's say let's say that free cash does not become available. In what ways does this change our calculus and the rules we might add back? And if the free cash is available but doesn't go to circuit breaker but instead goes to stabilization fund does that change our calculus in any way?
>> Um do do we do you have an opinion on that Mark? I I do uh I think I was trying to say that when we were talking about the circuit breaker option I given the lack of clarity I have at least in terms of like how final that proposal is and
again I think the town administrator has been clear that but he supports this it's just the other pieces the other boards that ultimately need supported places where I'm getting kind of some or fuzzy messaging there or conditional messaging on that my assumption is we make a decision based upon assuming
we're not going to get those funds uh and then if we get the funds that that's that's positive news. Those are those are one-time funds. So like to me it is the matter of like those are funds that could support the circuit breaker
uh building up the balance. So if we got those then at the end of next year we wouldn't be at 1.7 we'd be at one we'd be at 2.2 two um or and it again depends on if they can give it to us within the current operating budget or not or again if it to your point it goes in the special end. So there's a lot of
questions but let's just say like holistically we'd be at kind of 2.2 at the end of the 5year period we'd be at 3.2 so we be slightly above the 75% metric we'd still be below the 100% metric. Um, so to me that's
again it maybe that makes you feel like you could take out another 100,000 200,000 out of circuit breaker next year. I still would feel more comfortable keeping this at the 400,000. I think also based upon hearing from the department of the positions that they're
most uh intent on kind of bringing back that kind of fits within that 400,000 metric. We still haven't talked about fee implications uh in that bottom part. Um, but we still have some room. So, I guess again a long-winded way of saying like I I would assume I would suggest we make a decision kind of separate from
whether or not we get the 500,000 given it's not 100% clear if we will. And if we do, I think that gives us flexibility for FY28 conversations based on this number now being kind of 2.2 um
versus exactly what it does for FY27. >> Great. that that actually does help a lot. Sorry, John. >> Yeah. So, for the average person watching this, what I think is I think the way it's going to happen is Nick Milano has dedicated uh consistently that he's willing to
give us $500,000 in onetime funding to support reserves. There's four different ways that that can happen. So, one of the ways is for him to have that money go into the reserve in fiscal 26 in order in order
for it to be carried over into FY27. That money, to Mark's point, would go right into the circuit breaker special education fund, which would then give the school department and the school committee the flexibility to maybe stretch our balance work over
four years so we could maybe pull some money out that we wanted to support the operating budget. So, the 500 is one-time funding. There's no other 500 coming back to us next year, but it gives us the flexibility to maybe not
spend as much of our circuit breaker or expend some of it as we're talking about today on operating in order to support more positions being remain in remaining in the district. So, it's an in it's a dotted line to helping us with the operating, but it has to go through a
formal one-time funding into circuit breaker account that we would carry over for next year, but it gives us flexibility. Now, we don't have to spend as much local money uh on circuit breaker next year. We can actually, to your point, Mark, take 300 or 400 and
spend it on some of the positions that we want to carry forward and still maintain a pretty good four-year goal of getting to that 2.7. So, um, he has been very clear about how he wants to support both things. Um, and I think the select
board has the two members have also been supportive of both because they they I think everybody's trying to do both at the same time, right? How do you build that up? We know it's important, but how do we shave down the list a little bit to make sure that we're we're uh not reducing as many folks in services to
kids. So, I think that will work, but I don't think it changes our strategy. I think that just helps our strategy, right? We can support the the foundational account growing over time and we can use some of those funds now with a little bit more confidence to support override the operating budget
and taking some folks off that balance sheet off the reduction list. It's a good news story. >> Thank you. Can we um Oh, Anna, please >> just had a quick question about the director of data and analytics. I know
we do um see data presentations a few times a year. So, I was just wondering in the interim like how that would be handled. Um >> yeah, so we we um we have two positions. one, we're putting back uh the director
of technology will now be the director of technology and data analytics. Uh the work that's done by that position um currently uh just doing data will be absorbed into that new position. Um that is a restoration that we're making and
we're embedding that data analysis work into that role. Uh we're hoping that also with that role, we're keeping as you can see uh a stipen for a lead teacher role in technology as well to pick up some of the work. So we're basically moving the work from that one
position and embedding it into that to that former technology position. So, we have data analytics and we're relieving some of the pressure off the the technology person by having a unit A person get a stipen of between $5 and $8,000 in order to carry out some of the
work that that position used to do. Um, we want that position to be someone who is an educator who not only understands teaching and learning and why technology is important for our teachers and our students, but also knows the data and how the data should be framed and how that looks and how it should be shared
with uh the educators on an ongoing basis. So, we think it's a natural fit. Uh, our neighbors in Canton Public Schools have the same combining of service delivery there. That was one of our realignments that we were thinking of. Even if we did not have a budget crisis, we were going to realign that
work. Uh anyway, so uh the data is important. It's embedded in one of our five priorities to use data to inform instruction. We want that data to be collected and supported by someone who can actually interpret it from a teaching and learning perspective in a technology perspective. and we think
that we'll be fully up and running and we won't miss a beat with that position being eliminated and embedded into the work of the new IT director uh and data analytics person. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Could we talk a little
bit about I know because we've had conversations and we've received emails about uh the discussion around the director of nursing position and the idea of having um a nurse lead and then
possibly the addition to floating nurses just sort of the the rationale the potential impact of that. >> Sure. So when we arrived uh when I arrived in June, we had one nurse director um that was uh a UNIB position
that did not was not student facing six nurses, one in each building and then two floats uh which would go building to building when there were folks absent. Um we uh reduced one of those floats and went down to a uh a one float uh throughout the district. We also had
someone out on medical leave. So we were holding that other position in the budget because we had someone out on leave. Um what we're proposing is that we realign the positions so everybody's student facing. So a nurse lead would mean that they would take the
administrative tasks on but they'd also be responsible for seeing students every day. and that we actually created some funds in the budget line through contracted service to be able to make sure that we had time for that person to be able to go to the other schools when needed. Um, ideally I think we'd like to
see a nurse lead uh be one of the six nurses in a building and would actually like to go to two floats. We right now we only have one and what that means is we'd like to be able to have partner nurses at every level of the district. Right now, uh, we have the Cunningham
and Collicott has two nurses in one office and they can support each other. We'd like to actually have a nurse, one nurse, uh, at the club or one nurse at the Tucker and because they have same times, we'd like to have one of the nurses dedicate the float between those two schools so they have a three-way
partnership between supporting those two schools. And we'd like to have the the other float be connected to the middle school and the high school so they have some connectivity to how they can support each other. Um I am not um uh I'm not convinced that having seven
right now is is I think seven is adequate meaning one in every building plus one flow. I would definitely be open to thinking that if we had funding that we need to add a a separate flow to connect all the schools together that we might need that next year. Um so I'm
open to that idea uh as a potential uh put back. Um, but I'm not I'm not fully convinced at this point in time that we need a director of nursing that doesn't see students as much as we need someone responsible for the administrative leadership of that team that can be done
with a lead nurse model um to a certain level in order to support the student facing positions in our in our nursing office. So, uh, would I be interested in potentially adding a nurse throughout the year because if we if we're seeing our our nurses stressed, uh, with case load, then I would think about doing
that and would want that flexibility, but I don't necessarily think it could be it needs to be a director of nursing and another flow. So, I think ultimately nine was too much and I think eight might be the number and right now we have seven. Um, and um, so I think that
that's how we will move how we be moving forward um, at this point in time. Is that additional nurse an add not I guess an ad back position but a reallocation? >> It's potentially a reallocation because we right now we we know we're looking at
that as a potential need and we want to build flexibility and when we did not fill certain positions at the beginning of this year uh it gave us flexibility to put things back as we needed to see them. Uh so we added some lead teachers. Uh we added uh portions of people's um
workflow and we we'd keep an eye on that if we needed to add that back next year. But it's not something we can add it to the budget or we can decide if if we want to have any shifts we can make that shift next year. I would rather have it roll out and see how it's working before I adapt back.
Hannah, >> um I have to jump shortly, but I just wanted to say I really love the way you're explaining everything, John, because I think I think when you know there there is a reduction list that comes out, I think it creates a lot of fear in the in the community, but the
way you're explaining this and the way you're kind of looking at these positions and kind of seeing what makes sense, you know, and then we can always have that flexibility. If we need it, we can add it back in. I think that um that explanation is is so so important
because I think it does help kind of help kind of um calm everyone's fears the way you're doing it. And so I I just appreciate the thought that has gone into this and the conversations that we're having this morning because it really just helps. So it's like you know
when when these lists come out and we might have to make these changes it's really not just done to like cut positions but we are trying to do our best to make sure that the um you know that the services the our students are being seen and our services are
continuing and there's no interruption in any of that. But also allowing us the us the flexibility to say hey this no long this model no longer works. this might be better and you can see better results with in this format. So um I do
um I really really appreciate the explanation um that uh you have provided um and this conversation this morning. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. And um just to acknowledge that when you just got the list there's no other interpretation you can make other than hey they're just
cutting these things and there's no context here. So fully understand that when we had to put that meeting on the books for last week before break, our goal was to make sure that we talked to our staff and and got this list up and running. We have a context document for every single position that we are looking to realign and potentially
reduce that we will put as part of the material on the website. So if folks don't watch this, they can actually read through that and they can see what our rationale is behind every single reduction and every realignment and every position where we're looking to put back. Um and uh and there's some
fluidity to that that we want to maintain, but the the public deserves the conversation that we're having right now to have tonight. They also deserve the context document that we'll put on the website so they can read through it at their own time. And and this is uh to to the best of our ability. Um realign
resources where we can make sure we're delivering the services to our students. uh making sure we have systems in place to support this and be in line with whatever the revenue expectation or expect expense expectation we have to be uh to commit to. You know, we don't do
revenue. We we we have to respond to that. Uh and for the public to watch, we are reducing other parts of the budget other than people. We have some non salary based reductions that we're making and we have some fee increases that we're making that are part of this discussion. So, this isn't all about
reducing just people. We have reduced other parts of our budget in order to make some of these realignments work and to soften the blow on reductions. Uh, and we'll also be increasing fees, which I really, you know, we talked about this last time. I think Nathan, you said out loud, it's not easy to do. I think that
our our, you know, our our community is like every other community that they're paying more for things at the store. Uh, and it's harder to make things work. Their taxes just went up and then we're adding fees. So this is also, you know, a struggle for folks to pay for athletics, add more money to the bus fee
and the rental that we charge for whatever we use for facilities will come back to the end user by paying more for travel basketball. So like this is really a multiaceted um uh approach that we're trying to to make, but we should fully acknowledge
that there's a lot of other moving parts that we're trying to put in place to to broaden this work as well. And we'll talk about fees more tonight once TV's there. >> Yeah, >> thank you. Um, yeah, I do want to be
mindful of time just 9:18. Um, other portions of the budget presentation that folks want to ask questions. Okay. And we'll have a further conversation of the full school committee. is question I have to suggest
with the information that you kind of shared here and the feedback you've gotten likely too short a turnaround to like change any of these documents for for tonight in terms of like removing the DIB director as >> so we'll we will work to to have a we'll
work to put what we had up there today and then have a connected one that has it adjusted for what we talked about this morning and what we're recommending and we can see some our numbers we'll put up the um I think having the full circuit breaker slide that we had today >> should stay because I think it gives
everybody the the three options and why we're centering on option one uh to phase this out a little bit longer >> and then uh so we'll try to change the document that you just had up there with reductions to reflect what we talked about by tonight. >> Okay, >> we'll keep that one just in case we want
to go back to it and then we'll reflect a new one >> and that people can actually see it and then we'll have the document of the rationale. uh we might want to put that up so people know what it looks like and let them know where they can find it if they want to read further for the ration as well.
I think you know the goal for tonight will be like the goal for today acknowledge the impact that this had just as a list to people who just read it as a list and are responding in a way that it makes them concerned. Acknowledge that that concern is out there and we're looking to shift that um
so we take that impact off a smaller amount of folks. Um also uh look at how we can readress the budget to meet the needs of taking some of those things off the list and um and then being cognizant of how we can be fiscally responsible where we are and how we can draw out the the circuit breaker over a period of
four years to period of three in order to give us more flexibility with the operating and keeping in mind the longer term plan that there are some big systems and professional development work that needs to be done in the district in order to make sure that we're moving all of our resources in a
way that makes sense for kids. Um, and that that those additional positions need to sit into uh in those hardworking people need to be put into places where they can be as successful as possible and effective and efficient as possible for students that that those systems
might not be fully in place right now that we want to kind of shore up and be clear. And having one more year to do that work would be super helpful before we leave. Uh any other guess? Just going through the agenda. Um I'll skip the budget
coordination committee report. We did meet uh but I'll just do that tonight. Um and discussion of fees. We'll talk about that tonight a bit. And then our next meeting is we have a meeting tomorrow uh with tomorrow night with the warrant committee. You're you're not at
will save your your evening. Um but the support committee subcommittee kind of school group will update them and then our next meeting is next week on the 4th in terms of the agenda. >> I guess we'll my assumption is whatever kind of full committee feedback is
tonight we'll discuss that and kind of bring that back to the conversation next week. >> Maybe if there's time we'll continue that kind of policy um revolving accounts which include circuit breaker kind of policy discussion. But likely kind of mostly continuation
of that FY27 budget. >> Uh and then should also hold the week through March 11th as well. Just normal >> because then March 11th is the budget forum. Correct. >> Before this,
>> the annual budget. Yeah. Yeah. Um and there was discussion and I was open to having a a standalone meeting for like to with the PTO's to the budget. >> I actually uh would rather do that when we become a little bit more settled on where we might be.
>> Yeah. >> And some of these uh positions have been reallocated and things taken off the list that this might be so that when we get in front of the larger public, we can have a better understanding of where we're getting ready to settle. But that might be give you know the goal was to give the public a more of a chance to be
>> involved and give input at that point in time and I was going to do that next Wednesday night >> but I think it's important to have tonight's meeting and next Wednesday morning's meeting and maybe another school committee meeting before we actually >> yeah issue is timing because the warrant committee wants information by for the
last week of March if not I mean Jerry reached out was hoping to have something final by the 16th March. So, in all of this, there's just a timing issue. So, I totally agree with you. I'd love to get in front of um BTO's as like a wing with some family input before we have a
finalized >> vote on the budget pool. >> The budget that's budget. >> Yeah, we can expand the time for that maybe and we can be more thoughtful about making sure we give space to people to talk. >> The the having the night with the PTO is a little bit more fluid. It's a little
bit more back forth and it's uh might be a little bit easier for folks to get a better sense of the context in the in the thinking as we're doing right now. Hopefully we'll do a little bit better tonight doing that again. >> Yeah. >> Uh the forum will be another part of that that we can do uh the following
meeting. Uh, but if we think collectively they're getting in front of folks that week or somewhere that week after the budget forum for another night, I just want to get back to the PTO presidents and let them know that we're thinking of that and I'm not opposed to it. I just want to make the timing right.
>> I would strongly I would strongly recommend we get in front of the PTOs. I think going to where families are going to be rather than asking families to come to where we are is always kind of a better way in which to kind of >> get more feedback. Um, when we're talking about the budget, >> we talking about PTO presidents or were
you talking about P? >> No, the the recommendation for the PTO presidents was to have one night at the high school where it's not a formal school committee meeting. >> Yes. >> So, it can just be at least a little bit more of a more fluid conversation and we wouldn't be meeting them in their buildings as much as they'd have to come to the high school. Yeah.
>> But at least collectively, they would be getting their >> their constituents out at their own individual buildings to come up and be part of meeting >> to hear the explanation. So yeah, I I I feel very comfortable doing that. Uh I think if it helps, it helps. That's the
whole goal. Uh I was just trying to fit it into the window. >> Yeah. No, totally agree. >> Okay. >> When do we need So in talking to Lizzie, typically we would have the budget forum. The night of the budget forum is that when we would vote on the budget, >> that's what we've done in the past, but
that's always felt like terrible practice feedback. We're just going to vote on what we've done. So then if if so I guess I'm just trying to figure out timing. So if we meet March 11th and then the next meeting is what the 25th school committee meeting it would that
be the point at which we would >> I try to >> I think so if not like trying to get a meeting >> trying to have a meeting between just for the purpose of voting on the budget on the >> Yeah. If we could if we could have the the public Yeah. I just I really have
despised like having the vote the same night as the public because there's no way to incorporate the comment. >> Right. >> Uh so we have that on the 11th >> try and have this meeting with the you know >> organized with the PTO's sometime next week or the week of the
9th. So that essentially get kind of like some that's two weeks of trying to get public input depending upon I mean I was glad we had a majority of the school committee here to see some of that and hopefully tonight we have some general agreement not again a finalized vote but
general on the direction we're going so we can share that get any additional feedback from community members the like on the 11th uh I would recommend maybe we meet with kind of have that PTO meeting before the 11th so that on the 11th at that school
committee meeting, we can debrief whatever feedback we get from PTO and whatever feedback we get within that meeting public presentation and then it might be that then we need to have special meeting on the 18th if possible or another day that we just
just vote and finalize it and we can submit to the warrant committee. Um, >> we could talk about that and make sure. >> Yeah. >> And again, we'll I think we'll take what we have right now and and share that update with the war committee as a fluid
process to the subcommittee at least. >> Um, so hopefully they won't be too okay >> taken off guard. Um, but yeah, do ultimately need the full committee to vote on it. >> I I have a tentative uh I I held the fourth open for that that PTO meeting
just as a placeholder. um on the 18th uh which and we're only talking Wednesdays now. We also upgrade one night. >> So, we don't want to have a conflict with that. But that doesn't mean we can't meet on a Tuesday or Thursday or whatever we need to as a full body or to do this some some other time. There's
just a lot of nights that are starting to build up and I just want to make sure that we get it in there so we're all on the same page that we'd like to get in front of the public in a more direct way before the final decisions are made and we'll try to work out a calendar tonight to talk about that >> and people do have the right to come to
the uh public speak part of the meeting tonight and also the public forum the following week. We're just trying to add another layer of you know openness, feedback and listening. um if we can. >> Yeah.
>> Uh great. Any other thoughts, questions, >> other we'll be back at it then uh tonight. So with that, I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Great. Uh all in favor, we'll do a roll
call vote. Uh Nathan, >> yep. >> Amanda, >> yes. >> I am a yes. You're journal. >> Thank you everyone. See you tonight.