I.
I, I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Da da
da. Da da da da. 555. Five. Oh.
Oh.
Oh. Oh. Oh. 550. 5555. 5550.
Five. Da da da da. Da da da da
da da. 555. I. I. 55I.
I. All right. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. I will now call to order the February 27th, 2025 meeting of the Policy Management Committee. I'm very excited to be here. This is my
first time running the committee meeting for this particular committee. So first I would like to give my colleagues a moment to introduce themselves. I start from my left and then I go online. Good afternoon everyone. Carla Silvestre, school board
member at large Brenda. Good afternoon, Brenda Wolff district five. And I'm Julie Yang of District three. Our student member of the board is trying to get here. He is at Annapolis advocating on behalf of the
school system. All right. So next I would like to ask my colleagues if there are any questions or concerns regarding the informational summary of the last meeting on November 14th, 2024. So given that this is my
first meeting, where would I find the informational summary? Is that on board docs? And when was that posted? Just so that I know the cycle. I didn't look at it, so I don't have any
questions. It was proposed yesterday. Thank you. So in the future it might be helpful when it's a late posting to have it at the table. Thank you staff. All right, Miss Wolff, do you have any questions? No, because
it was a late posting. I hadn't seen it either. So in that case, then if there's any questions, please follow up with me. Thank you so much. Okay, so today we are reviewing two policy items.
And it's policy G.c.b. Investigation of allegations of employee misconduct. And we'll hear an update on the public comments received and the resulting amendments. And we are also going to look at policy GA
positive work environment in a self renewing organization. And that is also an update on public comments received and resulting amendments. To date. The committee is also receiving an item of information on MCPs
regulation which have been approved by the superintendent's office since the committee's last meeting. So with that overview, I would like to turn it over to the staff. First introduce yourself, and then
let's get on with the agenda. Thank you. Good afternoon, Miss Yang. Miss Wolff, Mrs. Silvestre. My name is Leslie Turner Percival. I'm a legal director in the Office of General Counsel. Good afternoon,
and good afternoon to Miss Yang. Miss Silvestre and miss Wolff. I am Sally Davis, a supervisor of policy and Regulations in the office of the General Counsel. Good afternoon, Mrs. Yang. Mrs.
Silvestre. Miss Wolff. My name is Jessica Boone. I am the director and the Department of Compliance and Investigations. And good afternoon. My name is James Koutsos. I'm an acting director in the Department of Compliance and Investigations. Thank you. Thank you. Can we can
move to the first policy. Yes. Thank you. So, as you mentioned, Miss Yang, the purpose of today's presentation is to present comments received about draft policy. GCB investigation of allegations of employee misconduct, and also to recommend updates to the draft.
Based on these comments, after hearing and discussing these recommendations, the committee will be asked to consider moving draft Policy GCB to the full board for final action and approval. For the first part of this discussion. Let me orient
you to two documents in your packet for policy GCB. The five page draft policy marked response to public comments and the 17 page Stakeholder Engagement summary, which includes major themes from the comments, outreach contacts and
all comments received. At this point, I'll turn it over to Mr. Koutsos to begin. Thank you so much, Leslie, and good afternoon, Miss Yang. Miss Silvestre and Miss Wolff. If I could, I'd like you to turn to
first the draft policy. Lines 12 through 15. The charge we were given was to establish the core principles guiding investigations. And as we review the changes we're recommending, you'll notice that we recommend
that the purpose of the policy remain the same. I say this because there were comments about how the investigation findings would be used, how employees should be disciplined as a result of the findings, and other comments that actually fall outside the scope of
establishing the guiding principles for conducting investigations. We recommend that the policy remain focused on the purpose of investigations, to establish key facts, to address gaps in the evidence, and to resolve
emissions or inconsistencies in such evidence. It would be helpful at this point if you could also have the second document in your packet available. The policy GCB Stakeholder Engagement summary.
We saw four themes that needed to be addressed with respect to the conduct of investigations, and we have recommended a number of updates in response. These themes were first, the need for regulations and administrative
procedures. And we have added language to require the superintendent to establish regulations and a thorough and thorough administrative procedures for consistent implementation of this policy, and for the superintendent to
review and update the procedures annually. And that's found on line 61 through 63 of the draft policy. Second timelines. New language requires the superintendent to establish
timelines, and that can be found on lines 138 through 139, with the understanding that when an external agency has taken the lead in an investigation, MCPs may not begin an internal investigation until that
external agency has concluded their investigation. MCPs cannot risk interfering with or jeopardizing an external investigation. We will come back to that point in a moment, but let me address the other two
themes in the comments about investigation procedures. Third, addressing conflict of interest. When there is a potential conflict of interest, an employee has three ways to disclose that conflict of interest first to their supervisor. But there may be
situations when the supervisor may not be an appropriate person with whom to be discussing the case. The second possibility is the chief of the Office of Human Resources and Development, or third to the Board Ethics
Officer, as set forth in the board's ethics policy. And finally, in terms of themes, training and certification, the policy intentionally states that the investigation unit as a whole needs to have a balanced
portfolio of expertise and to receive ongoing professional development, and that can be found in lines 110 through 116. Past experience has shown that the investigation unit needs an
array of expertise. Turning next to appeals in response to comments, we recommend the board establish the essential components of an appeal process in policy GCB and assign responsibility to the superintendent to establish and
annually publish procedures for appealing the findings of an internal M.C.P.S. Investigations, and that information is within lines 159 through 176. Now, I'd like to
turn it over to my DCI co-director, Miss Jessica Boone. Good afternoon again. This is Yang and members of the committee, in response to the board members comments, we recommend expanding reference to
retaliation with a more complete statement of Maryland whistleblower law. As you are aware, the Maryland whistleblower law states that a public school employer may not take or refuse to take any personnel action as reprisal for
reporting misconduct, providing information, or testifying against or testifying about misconduct, or refusing to participate in misconduct. We have included the exact language in the updated policy draft. For your information, the in
reference in the related injuries. There are two M.C.P.S. Regulations in the Employee Code of Conduct that also reference whistleblower law and state whistleblower law, and state that employees found to have
have engaged in reprisal will be subject to disciplinary action. I would also like to address the comments we received about data security. We recommend additional language requiring a secured case tracking system
with appropriate access, use and disclosure protocols to preserve internal work product of the investigation, and to adhere to all legal obligations regarding the confidentiality and appropriate disclosure of student and employee information
in accordance with federal and state law, and that can be found in the draft policy line 77 through 87. And I can assure the committee that the Guardian system that went online last June does precisely that. At
this point, I'd like to turn it over to Sally. Thank you. Jessica. I'd like to turn now to Mr. Koutsos earlier comment about external agencies. So in response to comment, we recommended additional language
that expands what had previously been coordinate with external agencies and specifically establish a mechanism through which this will and does occur. So new language requires m.c.p.s. To establish and regularly update memoranda of
understanding with law enforcement and set forth the categories of allegations for which law enforcement is responsible. For example, these clearly state in our existing memoranda the types of responses that will be handled by child welfare services, child welfare,
child Protective Services and the Adult Protective Services for vulnerable adults. In compliance with mandatory reporting law. Further, we've added the statement that MCPs fully cooperates with law enforcement and that internal
MCPs investigations may not interfere or jeopardize external investigations. So we do not recommend a list of categories of offenses in this policy for which external agencies will be involved. So at this point, Mrs.
Yang, I defer to you, and whether you would like me to walk through the policy further, line by line or pause. Now for your discussion. I think I would like to go for discussion, because the line by line is very clearly listed in our packet. So
I'm going to turn to my colleagues. I see Miss Wolff hands up and Miss Wolff. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you for the work that you all have been doing on this. I know it, it's been a long journey. I have a couple of questions. Well,
questions and comments. Hold on. On the state. I'm looking at the responses. Stakeholder responses. And I am on page four. Okay. It says the policy
doesn't address communication protocols with accused employees. Is this because that is contractual? It's in the agreement. Miss Wolff, when you say page four, it's the
stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement summary. Yes. Okay. My question is I looked at what you all responded, recommended notifying that they're all under investigation. If the employee is accused of misconduct, they're notified. And I was
wondering where do you find that information. Is that contractual? So I'm not sure if I can reference it as contractual, but I will say that throughout the investigative process, we collaborate with the employee associations to ensure that there are effective
communication protocols. In fact, from the start of an investigation, we provide the staff member who is alleged to be involved in any particular misconduct or violation of the Employee Code of Conduct, a resource document with contact information for their employee
association, and then work and collaborate both with the employee and with that association representative through every stage of the investigative process. Okay. So my question then would be, since you're not exactly sure it's in
the contract and you can't point to me where I would go to know that I have that right. Other than you're saying it right here. Is there a real problem with putting that in the policy? Some reference to what the
protocol is? I don't know that there would be a, a problem of, of putting it into the policy per se. I don't know how deeply we would go into describing those protocols as regulations typically address things that are have greater specificity in
terms of process and procedure. Well, you know, I was just going to say a reference to the regulation and put it in the regulation. Yeah, that could be the potential follow up, because I believe at this point we're in the as you know, the policy development stage and the
regulation stage could follow with that specific information. That's fine. I just want to know, can you reference it in the policy, not put in all of the jargon that you would need, but just reference the regulation on it. Helpful
information. Okay. Now my next question is oh, you have to excuse me if you're hearing stuff. I'm I'm over at Farallon for their program this evening. And so I'm doing the policy meeting from there. I'm on page
five now of the summary. And one of the comments was implement regular audits of completed investigations. And so you all referenced the right to privacy. And I understand all that. But since the board has an audit unit, is there really a problem
with actually doing some sort of sampling to look at the to be able to be sure that the process is being followed? I don't see any reason or rationale why there should not necessarie some type of audit procedure
that we could engage around. I do think it would have to be taken into consideration. Whatever confidentiality, legal obligations that we have as a school system to employees and their employee personnel
records. But the good news about the Guardian case management system is that it does keep significant data, data on our processes, the timelines associated with investigations and how we move through those
processes. And so I think internally, there could be structures that are built into a potential audit that reviews that data and discusses any general trends associated with the investigative process. Yeah, I'm I'm only looking for trends.
I'm not interested in names, schools, anything I'm looking to see. Well, we had we did this many investigations on this and the procedure was followed and 70% of them. But there was a deviation, that kind of thing. So that there if there's something going on that we would
be able to pick it up. Yeah. I think that's an excellent recommendation and one for us to consider as we move forward with this policy, I would agree. Okay. Okay. And moving on, my next comment or question is I
would really like to see and you can tell me that you don't think that this is doable. Some references in here that certain types of cases will be reviewed by the Office of General Counsel before a decision is issued. I
mean, cases that lead to termination in particular. Yes. So we do have a review of certain cases that do go through the general counsel, depending on what the type of allegation and the type of disciplinary
action that we think will come as a result of the investigation. And where do I find that information? So this is this is something that an agreement that we have with the general counsel that they've asked to review certain cases
for certain types of allegations. But to this point we have not codified it. Sorry. Ms. Wolff to interrupt. We have not codified it through policy. It's really been a practice and a procedure that we've engaged directly with the Office of General Counsel around. And so if there's a recommendation or
desire to include it in the policy, that obviously could take into consideration. But there are, I guess, some practices and procedures that may be best for regulation or for internal working. But I'll yield to the board and others on that decision. I, I don't care
really, whether you put it in the regulation or the policy. I just believe that there are there is a certain level of case that requires OGC review and that that ought to be known, so that the public could find a document that tells them that.
Understood. We will absolutely note that and go back to the table and review. Okay. And then my I have another question. And again I'm not sure how I feel about this, but in the appeals section you go in pretty deep.
And you actually I think and maybe I'm wrong. Give a number two direct engagement of hearing officer assigned to review the. I'm not sure that we assign a hearing officer in every appeal, so I'm wondering if it might be
better to replace the language with something to the effect that decisions of the superintendent may be appealed in accordance with education. Article sections four, dash two zero 5 or 6 202 as applicable, which covers the appeals
process. That we can do we agree? Okay. And I think I have one other little, little thing. I can't find it now, but it had to do with complainants being complainants. Hold hold on. I
think it was. Okay. It is. Go back to the summary. So on page four, the first one. What can a complainant do if their complaint isn't taken seriously or investigated adequately? Well they may have repercussions
outside the system, but I don't know that they're entitled to anything. The accused is entitled to take an appeal, but I don't know that the complainant is. Once an investigation has decided that there's no problem. I think you
make a very good point. And I think if we're talking about employee misconduct investigations, then, you know, that isn't necessarily something that is brought back to or divulged back to a complainant because of the confidentiality
of a of a personnel record and that process. But I think that complainants have been able to access or utilize other means to report a concern, whether it's through lighthouse, whether it's through safe schools or other
options to express the concern that they may feel did not get the attention that they had hoped it would receive based on their understanding of the situation. But I think it's important for our processes to.
Be respectful of the confidentiality laws and expectations and obligations that M.C.P.S. Have to a confidential personnel record, and that's kind of what I felt. But this seemed to give the complainant for which a decision had been made, that there is no problem, some sort of right, and
they may have rights, but I don't know that it's to take an appeal because they feel it's been an inadequate investigation because they're not seeing the investigative report, are they? No, that is not something that is shared with the complainant,
and it is not something that is, in essence, open to that review or that type of review process. Well, I just want you to take a look at that. That's a little bit disturbing to me. The way that's the way I'm interpreting
what you're saying there. And lastly, I just think number four, in the policy itself to no. Three it's under three. No, it's under number four. This whistleblower law. I just think the sentence reads a little
awkward to me. It says may not take or refuse to take any personnel action as reprisal against an MCC. I had to read that a couple of times. I don't know if you could do that a little clearer. We could, we
could, we could just reference the whistleblower law or we could quote it. But that is pretty much the state's language. So we could shorten it. And well, if it's the language out of the state, leave it. But it's a little bit awkward to me the way it's written. No, you're right,
because retaliation, reprisal, you know, it's we're crossing words. We've been using retaliation in most of our regulations. But if it is simpler to just say or not simpler, but if it's less
confusing to leave lines 45 to 47 and cut 48 to 57, we could certainly do that. Thank you. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you, Miss Wolff. Any other
questions from members? Miss? Miss Silvestre. Mr. Koutsos, you you mentioned our ethics officer, and I just wanted to for the viewing public. That person is the board's assistant
chief of staff. I thought, okay, where in the org chart is that person? Oh, no. It's someone who has other job responsibilities. Just make a note of that. Again, back to line 45. Miss Wolff
already pointed out that it's complicated language and it's the state's language. But is it? Can we or is it necessary? Could we say MCC or its employees to be more specific? Right. The way
the law reads is public school employer. And it kind of would follow people who are then designated to do jobs down the line. So we could say that. Yeah. What is the wording you'd like to see? Just MCC or its employees? Okay. And then line
73 that B item is I, I don't understand what that says. Investigation of all complaints that pursues anonymous complaints with the same procedures and thoroughness as those in which the complainant
identifies themselves based on all relevant information available. Okay. It starts with the stem. There will be a case management process to include investigation of all complaints.
Now you're right, there's a lot of words there. But the point is that anonymous complaints will be reviewed with the same procedures as non anonymous complaints. If you would like that simplified we can take a crack at that. Put it through
chat. GPT is a plain language or some plain language. English please. Just a little technical thing. I think on line 128 you
have an extra and. Participating in an investigation and but you added an and in three I. That's
all I had. Okay. Thank you. I have a question. So I understand currently we have we do investigation and we have processes and procedures. And we are developing a policy. Now
according to this policy we are going to the superintendent need to develop a regulation and that needs to be renewed annually. So can you can you kind of let us know in terms for us to do that
and what's the timeline we are really looking at? James, do you want me to take that? Okay. So what we intended to say was that there would be regulation and procedures, and that the procedures would be updated
annually. So that would be a staff review of the procedures and, you know, editing as appropriate for all the changes in office and new procedures. So that was the intention that it would not be the regulations, but the procedures that are reviewed will be the procedures that. But right now, do we have
the regulations. We do not have an investigations regulation. So my question this work. Yeah. So my question is if you have to project like predict how, when, what how long will you take to
develop that regulation. A timeline. Sure. So the procedures exist. And so that is already established. By June we will have a policy, we hope, as you do, to. So then we can begin
working on the regulation. If you would like a forecasted time and you know, we get some sense of expedite or not. We could certainly put it together by the winter. Okay. That's good to know. That's good to know
because this is very important work. I don't want us to lose the momentum. We need to keep going and get it done. Right. My second question is about the timeline. So one of the things as a board member we see is oui,
oui, oui. We understand the case law. And then we also understand the financial burden on the school system. When an employee is under investigation. Okay. Currently, I understand each
case is different. So the timeline might be different. But currently doing in this policy. Is there a place address timeline issues? I think that's an excellent question. And one of the things that our office
engaged around when Miss Boone and I came last April, was through the course of the summer. We really analyzed our data to look at the timelines and durations that had existed with previous cases, and what we were also seeing in our current
workload. And we made the determination after that data review that once we have control of the investigation, after an external investigation, if it's applicable, is concluded, and we are now conducting the investigation in DCI, that there
should be a maximum of 30 to 45 days, that an investigation should be completed. And Miss Yang, I want to reiterate what you said. Every case is unique and different, and sometimes there are new. There's new information or new evidence introduced through the course of the investigation that may
expand or retract the timeline. But one of the benefits of the Guardian case management system is it helps us track and monitor the timeline for cases, and we are engaging with our coordinators and investigators.
Once a case hits the 30 day mark to find out, are there barriers that we need to remove? Are there things that you you need as an investigator so that we can conclude and close this at the 45 day mark? Then we work collaboratively with the employee involved, as well as
that employees Association representative, to ensure that we're scheduling and respecting their availability when producing or moving forward with decisions on the investigation. And if I could just add one thing to that. We have in
regulations such as Clara, we have laid out the goal is 45 workdays, for example. That's what the statement is there with a provision that if it is very complex, there's an assessment at the 30 day mark, you're going
to need more time. Okay. Okay. So it's codified in our that's what we would put in a reg. Okay. Okay. So that that's wonderful. I'm very pleased to hear that. We will codify that. And also for employee and every
party involved a long time is stressful and difficult. Okay. I, I don't have any further questions. I'm going to look around my colleague to see if there are any other concerns. If
there is none, may I have a motion to so that we can let the whole board see this work? So moved. Second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. With those present.
Thank you. We can move on to the next policy. Okay. Next. We are bringing draft policy. GA workforce excellence to present
comments received and recommend updates to the draft. Based on these comments, and after hearing and discussing these recommendations, the committee will be asked to consider moving Draft Policy GA to the full board for final action and approval. We will be discussing two documents in your packet for
policy GA. The seven page draft policy marked response to public comments and the 23 page Stakeholder Engagement summary, which includes major themes, outreach contacts, and all comments received both through in focus groups and through the
public comment page. Let me turn it over to Sally. Okay. So when the board took tentative action on policy GA, we discussed several things, one of which is retitling the policy to Workforce Excellence. It is kind of an artifact of our process
that we leave a name on something until you officially take final action to change a title. So but we recommend a change to workforce excellence. And we discussed it at that point. The board's core purpose
statement that students are the center of our work, and we provided a substantially revamped policy that supports the success of students with workforce excellence. So policy GA was re-envisioned to emphasize workforce excellence
as a requisite for student success, and to simultaneously recognize that all employees play a direct and indirect role in student successes. So we discussed the importance of policy GA for clearly
articulating board values that you expect all employees to experience in the context of an MCPs professional growth system. And we laid out the three interconnected functions of a
professional growth system that one provides for onboarding role specific skills, learning focused evaluation that keeps our employees skills sharp for the jobs they have now. Secondly, looking ahead to the many ways employees can move
into greater areas of responsibility and leadership with professional learning and opportunities for career advancement to draw out their professional interests and leadership potential, and to retain our talent. And then third, should it become
necessary, a structure that fairly and effectively responds when employee performance is falling short of required competencies and supports employees and intervenes effectively. So we recommend
keeping the policy focused on these three essential functions of a professional growth system. And in response to public comments, we've added some clarifying language to the purpose section to lay out. These are the three functions of a professional growth system.
And now I'm going to turn to Miss April Key, chief of the Office of Human Resources and Development. Miss key. Thank you Sally. Good afternoon, Miss Yang. Miss Silvestre. Miss Wolff. Let's talk about onboarding. There are a number
of comments about onboarding new employees, for which we recommended expanded language about the need for all employees to be welcomed and prepared for success with role specific knowledge, as well as training on system wide compliance
requirements. This is in lines 90 to 94. We do not recommend calling out any one job position, but recommend a continued focus on all employees. Specifically about professional learning, we
received comments asking for balance between role specific learning and required compliance training, such as the annual training we require of all employees about mandatory reporting requirements. Also,
lines 130 to 133. The importance of employee feedback about the content, design and relevance of the professional learning we provide or require. We responded with updates we heardour
focus groups that an employee's immediate supervisor is the day to day face of the professional growth system. It is their job to provide routine support, supervision and learning focused evaluation essential to
workforce excellence. In response to comments, we recommend a clear statement that there shall be a shared responsibility across MCPs, leadership and supervisors and all MCPs schools and offices for
timely and effective professional learning support and evaluation. That would be lines 77 through 79. The last update I'll highlight is the close connection between the professional growth system and the Employee Assistance Program.
Commenters raised the importance of supervisors getting the support they need to do this work of providing learning, focused supervision, and ongoing feedback to staff. And so we recommend additional language about the importance of
professional learning to foster supervisors leadership skills and support supervisors well-being. That will, in lines 83 to 87. The last update I'll highlight is the language recommended about how the
Employee Assistance Program supports the Professional Growth system. It is an important source resource. I'm sorry for nurturing employee well-being, and it enhances workforce collaboration by addressing concerns that may manifest in
the workplace with prompt and effective dispute mediation. With that, Mrs. Yang will conclude, and we're ready for your discussion. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation, Miss Key. And I'm going to turn to my colleagues to see if there
are any questions or comments. Okay. Yes, Miss Silvestre. Yeah. Just a couple technical things. On line 32. Foundational. You start with Montgomery County Board of Education, affirms its
core purpose, affirms its core purpose, is preparing all students to thrive. Foundation to M.c.p.s. Is ability. Should that be the board's ability?
Yes. And on line 157 that reads, there's something wrong there. Nurture employee well-being. Skip the and through individual
and group support. Yes. And that's all. I actually do not have questions I have comments. Within within our school system,
I find the. Professional development compared to other fields. We always say that we have a less of a ladder for people to climb in, career wise, for our our staff. I know that
blueprint for Maryland's Future tried to address that with the National Board certified. Certification. But I'm still looking at our vast of our supporting supporting staff that
the career ladders are very limited. For them. So this is something for us as a system to consider. But I'm glad we have a professional development policy to follow. Thank you. Any other
questions from my colleagues? No. So with that, may I have a motion to move it to the board? So moved. Second. All in favor? Please raise your hand. That's
unanimous. With those present. All right. So moving right along to the information. The. Do any of you have questions regarding the item of information on
regulation approved by the superintendent's oe? Since the committee's last meeting. I did have a question about the regulation. CoA RC responding to
a reportable offenses by students. Could you just give me an overview of the changes that were outlined there in one
through five? So this is a new regulation in response to Maryland law. Yes. And we needed to lay out the state definition of what constitutes a reportable
offense. So it is something that happens off school property and is not at a school sponsored event. It wasn't at prom. It wasn't at an away game. We are
required in that law to report. So I'm sorry. The law requires MSD to report annually to the General Assembly, and we have to report information to MSD. Let's
see. Require Maryland public school districts. Right. So we have to report that information to MSD. There was a clearly stated right in the Maryland law that if there is going to be a meeting to discuss the removal
of a student from their regular program, the student's attorney, if they have an attorney, must be invited. We had previously stated that before we developed the reg in another one, but that's why we wanted to carve out. There were so many things
specific that we carved out a special regulation, and then you'll see what we followed up with, with regulation, was to carve out what we had put there and just make sure everything was aligned. Miss Davis
actually, is it that for this under Maryland law, we are reporting, things happen. The things are students, but the events happen off school campus
and off school time. Am I understanding this correctly? This is a regulation to govern that. So you don't go over. We are not going to be reporting on every reportable offense that
one of our students gets involved in. But when we need to respond and we can follow up and check this out a little bit more, if you want to clarify your question a little bit more, I'd be happy to get back to you with a more complete answer. But
something happens to a student and it may impact school operations, and we have to figure out sometimes how we're going to respond. Can you? If you want me to follow up more, I will. Yeah. So I try to get to understand. I understand what you mentioned about school,
about events happening on our property. That's not our sponsor activity. Okay, I understand that part, but I'm trying what? I'm trying to understand. If it's our students, something happen outside of campus, what
is our responsibility under this law? Are we being notified? Do we need to report something? You know, so I would like to be clear on that so I can give you a more detailed response. But
essentially we're sometimes called on to communicate with the police department. If it's a student that's been detained, we need to communicate with that detention center, for example. And coordinate educational services. So there's a there's
sort of a lot of steps that are involved with students that fall under the reportable offense law. So that is so they will not let us know once things happen to our students outside of
school time. And they have these interactions in the judicial system, if they're aware that it's an MCPs student, we have a process by which our staff is notified so that we can follow up, particularly in the event that the student is detained.
Okay. And then does the state law, MSD require us to report this annually to them? If we're if we have notice. Yes. Okay. Okay. Then I'm clear on that procedure. Okay. I'm not clear. But it says here the updated
comar. Response to concerns by the General Assembly about the purported misuse or overuse of school removals for students arrested for reportable
offenses. Use or misuse of school removal. So what's the problem? They're trying to solv. The problem they're trying to solve. Is that a student being
arrested for something is not a. Disposition about guilt. It is. They've been arrested. There was a concern at the state level that just the information that a student had been arrested would
mean that a student would be removed from their school program, and that is not legal in Maryland. Now, if you're going to, you cannot remove a student just based on the fact that they've been arrested. There is a process that has to
be followed. And the state law and the state regulation are very specific to of the steps that need to be followed. You know, there are. The kinds of situations that have been discussed as we were working on
the reg was, for example, some kids were involved in something and it could come back to school. And it you know, is there a safety impact of that arrest on the functioning of the school system? And then there is
a process that the state lays out for how that should be addressed. So that is when we know when the student return, we know that something has happened. Then we need to do this report. Okay. Okay. I'll
have to process it a little bit because the change is technical. I mean, are we all ready? This is a this is an update. It's not like it's a brand new regulation. Correct. This is a new regulation for us. It is a new regulation for us. It is a
new state law for us. And there were things that had to be worked out. There had to be protocols worked out with law enforcement. I mean, it's one thing if it's, you know, the Rockville law enforcement, but it's another if it's, you know, DC or, you know, Howard County or something like that. The what
what is a concern definitely is when the kids know about something before the principal knows about it, before our Office of Security and Compliance knows about it, because the information from law enforcement was not coming as, as, as we would have hoped. And
so this law sets out that they need to they need to report to us if they know the kid is one of our I'm sorry. They know the student is an MCPs student. So there are there are protocols that had to be worked out in the process of developing this regulation, so that principals
knew how to respond when they know that kids are coming to them with some information. Right. Parents are coming to them with some information needs to be verified. You know, how should we follow up to get this information verified? So those are the kinds of things we
wanted to make sure we had provisions for all of that. It just says the Co a RC was revised. That's why I was confused. You're saying it's a brand new regulation. But this document says it was revised and
I apologize for that. That's an error. So Miss Davis does this cover, for example, a student transferring to us from a different jurisdiction, a different school district? Does
this cover that? If that's if that student has a record that that record will come with, that student's to us when the student register for our schools or this does not cover that. Not necessarily. There is not an
obligation for a student to sort of self-report any past. Okay. So that one is still okay. Okay. It does make a difference, I think, for us it's always more
information is better to help us to help the students and have support and services available. The state legislature wanted to make sure that school systems weren't unnecessarily punitive towards students for actions
outside of the school, of course. How does this help that? Well, we certainly had to set forth, as Miss Davis mentioned, a process for communicating with law enforcement, for getting teams together. Various relevant members of the school team
together to discuss safety concerns that may have arisen from actions outside of the school. Okay. Okay. I mean, it doesn't really it's not telling me how it's impacting getting
kids expelled or not expelled from school. But I'm not saying the full regulation, so I'm not I'm just saying your your summary here. So. Right. And it's a new process in terms of how we've been communicating with law enforcement, in terms of making sure we're addressing
concerns and having, you know, clear communications between the school and law enforcement, if relevant. So I think you can give some time for implementation and perhaps
bring, you know, staff before you to give you an update on how that process is. If a principal hears a student was arrested or knows the student was arrested over the weekend and shows up on Monday, they're not going to
suspend them. I mean, I just I'm just having a hard time seeing how this communicating with police is changing, how principals interact or discipline the student for
behaviors outside of the school. If it if it impacts the school. Yes, that's exactly what. That's exactly what teams are trying to ensure is happening, that they look at potential impacts. And
there are times when questions have been raised by community members. Right. And in certain smaller communities, you hear about things that have transpired in that community right away. And then there are questions and allegations made. And, you know, people are stirred. So there's there needs
to be that opportunity to gather the team together, to have that conversation, to make sure that the community knows that we're looking at it objectively and ensuring the safety of the students in the school. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate all the explanation. If I could get
the full regulations, I could read that through. I just I just want to understand. So Miss Silvestre, Miss Wolff, miss Yang, let's maybe address the issue of process. What we had done in previous years that we changed at the direction of the
committee we had been bringing you at a policy management committee. The whole stack of regs. The way we are communicating that to you now is in the weekly updates from the superintendent. So for example, this regulation was signed by
the Superintendent on November 21st. So right about that week you would have received the full regulation in the Weekly Superintendents Update. Now a lot has happened since November. So it is it is a question to you
of how you would like us to talk about what we don't know when we bring you an item of information like this to this committee meeting, would you like us to stick with the process we're doing now, or would you like us
to include in your packet the full regulation? And, you know, we don't need a decision now, but if you could give us some guidance on what you would prefer. So like you said, November to now is full three months. And it's it will be helpful to attach the link of
the regulation. Doesn't hurt. Yeah I like the summaries. Like the summaries is good. But in your materials and even because this is also public information to attach the link, the public don't don't get the full packet.
The weekly update right from the superintendent. So I think that will be helpful. Okay. So a link but not paper copy. Yeah a link would be good. Thank you. All right. So that is our last item
of business. All right. Any other comments questions concerns from committee members. Okay. So if that without any I don't see any hands then I will move I will move that the
committee adjourn. Any objections to that? No. All right. Committee meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone.
For. Da da da da. D