--------- Welcome everyone uh to the business portion of tonight's agenda. Um if everyone would rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. All members are present at this time except for Director Olstead. I will now take a motion to
approve the agenda made by Director Bullion. Is there a second? Second by Director Johnson. Discussion hearing. Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries
6. Moving down to new business, uh the annual survey results. Dr. Thomas. Thank you, Chair Whiteboard directors. Um tonight, uh we have Dr. C who is going to be joining us from the student education group. Um each year, uh about
this time, we share the cumulative results with the board around our stakeholder feedback survey and the big themes that are emerging. Um, and it's great for us, uh, as a team of leaders because we take this feedback very seriously. And, um, just a quick little
story. A couple weeks ago, we had a lines of communication, um, interaction with our, uh, union leadership. And, uh, a question was asked about do you actually read the stakeholder feedback or do you like use AI to kind of generate themes? and we share that no,
we actually read every single one of these thousands of these um data points that come from our students and our staff as well as our families. And um yes, we can use tools to help synthesize things, but it really helps us to read it, to get the context for it, and we set our goals around a lot of this work
um throughout the district. So, it's something that's really important to us. Um I think it's something that the board also highly values. Um we are in the process of working through the uh redaction of that uh big data set and when when it's done um for the board you
can come in to uh review it in the office as we do every single year as well. Um so with that I am going to um turn the conversation over to uh Dr. C. Well thank you Dr. Thomas. It's so lovely to see so many of you that I know
I've had an opportunity to interact with previously. Uh for new members uh who are serving as directors on your board if we have not had the chance to personally meet yet. My name is Casey Blhoviaak and I serve student education
as the vice president of leader coaching and I'm really humbled to be with you this evening uh going into what is uh nearing the end of our third year of a partnership with Prior Lake Savage Area Schools and for each of those three
years I've had a connection with your district as one of your leader coaches. Um as Dr. Thomas shared. I'm here with you this evening to provide you with your third annual report on the student education experience survey results. So,
I'll go ahead and share my screen so that we can take a peek into the uh really what I know you'll see as the great experience that those that you serve and your students, your parents, caregivers, and your staff are reporting
on this most recent survey. In the short presentation we have for you this evening, we're aiming for four key outcomes. The first is I will spend a brief amount of time just reggrounding us in the three experience
surveys that you provide to uh those in Prior Lake Savage area schools so that we all have the same understanding of what that survey looks like. We'll provide you with some really nice celebrations which I know you'll be pleased to see in terms of the summary
of the 2425 results. And then we'll peel back just one layer and look at a report of the student, parent, caregiver, and employee experience results so that you have a slightly deeper understanding of
what we're seeing from folks as they responded this year. and then leave you with one important takeaway before I invite um Dr. Edwards to provide a little bit of context on how the team is already actioning around these
results. Each of your three surveys are administered in the same window, so they run concurrently for each of the three groups that have an opportunity to respond. We wanted to just provide you a little
bit more context that there are of course different question items and as there are different question items there are different numbers um of of survey items that uh students, families, caregivers and employees have the
opportunity to respond to. And then in addition to those standard items be it 20 or 15 depending on the responding group there is also a question on our surveys that is called the net promoter
question. And so for students when they respond on the survey there is one net promoter question that asks them about their satisfaction of the overall school district. Family and caregivers have the
opportunity to respond on their satisfaction of the organization and then on their child's school. And similarly, employees have the opportunity to respond on the organization and then the individual
school or department that they directly serve. When we take a peek at the survey results for each of those three categories, in addition to seeing mean results on a one to five scale, you will
also see some calculations that we call top box and top two box. When we refer to the top box percentage, that is the overall percentages, excuse me, percentage of
responses that are a five out of a five. Your top two boxes then become responses that are a four and a five. So just for clarification, a five is strongly agree,
a four is agree, and again that five being strongly agree. As we get prepared uh to take a peek into uh some of the quantitative or numeric results for those three surveys, we want to take a moment just to provide
a bit of background on what a net promoter score is as well as how that's calculated. For those of you that have seen these results previously, you know that that net promoter score, unlike those survey
items of 15 or 20 that are the questions that folks respond to, the net promoter score, you respond on a range of a zero to 10. And it's a score that's used
across industry. Many businesses as well as other productf facing organizations provide this survey to those that they serve. And it's really seen as a gold standard of enthusiasm or
loyalty that folks have for an organization. And so unlike the other survey items that have scores that range from one to five, the net promoter score range is
actually quite broad. Net promoter scores can range from a negative 100 all the way up to a positive 100. And so when we start to look at your results,
we really coach our partners to aim for net promoter scores that are in the positive. Again, scores can range all the way down to the negative 100, but a
positive score on a net promoter survey means you have more promoters. So folks that respond a nine or a 10. Then you have detractors, responses that come in at a
0 to six. And I'd be happy to answer any questions about those scores or the methodology behind them after we have a chance to peek at the results for your district. Overall, as we look at the results that
came in for the 2425 school year for prior Lake Savage area schools, the overall mean from each of the three experience surveys increased. So, an indication of improved experience for
your students, your parents, caregivers, and your employees. As we dug a layer deeper and we looked at the 50 survey items that folks had the opportunity to respond
to, 46 of those 50 survey items increased this year over last year's reported survey experience. You are also going to see increased response rates from your parents and
caregivers and your employees from last year. And this final celebration is uh really one to be proud of and it's one that you've maintained over your three years of this particular experience
survey. Your student experience responses come in in the 70 to 75th percentile nationally. So very strong results. When we look at others across the country that provide this same
survey, your students are reporting a highly positive experience much more so than those around the country. So, we'll take a peek now into just one layer deeper for each of those three survey
results. So, I'll orient us to this screen because we will see similar tables for each three of the reporting groups. You'll notice in table one, you have three years of results available to
you. So the 23, 24, and 25 results from each spring, we've indicated with arrows whether the 25 results are either a decrease or increase over the previous
year. So on your student results for this year, we had a slight dip in responses and a slight increase in the mean. You can see the top box percentages of reporting uh for student
responses and again highlighting that highly successful mean when compared to student surveys nationally. This is really a place of maintenance of that highly positive student experience
overall. You'll notice down here students have that opportunity to report on their net promoter question. Maintaining a positive net promoter score is a good place to be. And we see that coming in
um at 3.71. Just about 32% of students reporting a nine or a 10 on that survey question. To provide you with another layer of detail for the results that we
received from students, we've highlighted a few elements on this slide. The green star indicates the survey item that saw the largest increase from spring 25 over spring 24.
And you can see that that's students reporting that they enjoy their specials or electives. We've noted with the yellow boxes the questions that or excuse me the survey items that are coming in as your
greatest strengths. So students believing that learning is important at their school that their principal is a good leader and that they have opportunities to be successful at their school.
We've also noted in the survey item or items that are boxed in red the opportunities that present themselves for us to get curious and work alongside students to understand what better would look like. And you can see those two
items noted for students. Students uh feeling that others are nice and show respect to one another and that they report liking to go to school each day. I'll note we did see um a a small increase there. Um so while
opportunities seeing some small movement from their reporting on those experiences. Next up are the parent and caregiver results. We've broken this first slide into two. So it will look a little bit different initially than what
we shared for students but the data will be uh largely the same in terms of the categories. Parent and caregiver participation was up um a nice amount in spring of 2025 over spring of
2024. And it's important to note alongside that increase, you also experienced an increase in your overall survey mean coming very close to a 4.0 um in the 2025 administration of the
survey. And then again, as you take a peek at those top box percentages, roughly 35% of overall responses were a five out of five. and just almost 74% of all responses were a
four or a five. When we compare those results nationally, we do see those coming in um right around the 20th percentile for benchmarking. Parents and caregivers, as you saw in that introductory overview,
have the opportunity for two net promoter responses. The first question asks them about recommending the organization or the school district as a good place for their child to learn. You
can see that while the result is still positive, which is where we want to be with net promoter scores, there was a slight decrease in spring of 25 over spring of 24.
Parents also have the opportunity to respond on their child's school and you'll notice uh this number was an increase which is of course a celebration from the 24 administration to the
25 and I'll also ground for you it is very common to see higher levels of satisfaction from parents related to their child's school rather rather than the larger district simply because they
have more opportunities for ongoing connection and interaction with their child's school. So that difference in score is very common from what we see with partners around the country.
having a moment to look at those 15 survey items that parents and caregivers have the opportunity to report on. Similar to what you saw with students will share that the highest increase we
saw on a survey item is indicated by the green star which is item number two. parents reporting they believe that school rules are enforced consistently at the school. Then those two items
boxed in yellow as the celebration believing their child or the highest numbers and the celebration believing their child has the necessary supplies and also believing the school provides a safe environment for their child to
learn. And then the item on the survey that presents an opportunity um and also one that stayed stable from last year to this year is receiving positive phone calls, emails, and notes about their child from the school. I'll note from
our work that we do with partners around the country that is very frequently an opportunity that schools and districts are working to get curious about and increase the parent experience in that way. So, not uncommon to see that come
in as one of the lower survey items. The final survey that we'll take a peek at is the results from your employees. You'll see an increase in responses from 24 to 25 and similarly an
increase in the overall survey mean. Just about a quarter of responses are coming in as the top box. So a five out of five. Just about 2thirds coming in at a four or a five. You'll see the notation for the national
benchmarking that survey mean coming in in the range between the 20th and the 25th percentile um across the nation for those responses like parents. Employees Oops. Yep. Sorry. Employees do have the
opportunity to report both on satisfaction for the organization and the department or school that they serve. You'll notice that both of these increased a very nice movement here
under the delta column for the perception of the organization. Um, still an opportunity uh for movement but some really significant growth as you can see there. And then when we look at the perception
of employees for their department or school, also really nice movement in a positive direction on the net promoter score. And similar to what we saw from parents and caregivers, the perception of the immediate work environment is
stronger or higher and something that we see across the country. Our last peak at the survey takes us into the items that your employees in Prior Lake Savage Area
School had the opportunity to report on. You'll see the two highest items for growth on the survey indicated by the green stars. Both of those items relate to organizational information um and how
team members across the district perceive that the first item relates to communication and that second item that saw the highest area of growth is creating a culture of success for employees across the organization.
The highest two items on the survey for employees talk about having a clear understanding of expectations as an employee and then believing that their work positively impacts those that they
serve. The opportunity from the employee survey presents that um feeling like organizational level resources are allocated to maximize effectiveness across the organization. So certainly a lot of
information presented to you tonight. I know that many of you are not seeing this survey report for the first time. But before I turn it over to Dr. Edwards. One of the takeaways that as a coach and someone who has the privilege
to look at these survey results from partners around the country, what I really hope you take away from the peak at the survey tonight, particularly as you saw the mean growth, the net promoter score growth in most areas
rebounding participation from the adults in the system. is that ongoing commitment to continuous improvement. Your leaders continually getting curious about the experience of those that they serve and the commitment to asking that
question and then acting on what better would look like. And so with that, Dan, I'll turn the floor over to you and then certainly Dr. Thomas, with your direction, address any questions
that may present themselves. All right. Thank you, Dr. Casey. Uh, yeah, I'm going to pick up from there and and, uh, emphasize a word that Casey uh, spoke of uh, frequently here in the presentation was the curiosity around the data. Uh a couple of weeks ago, we
engaged with our learning leaders, which again represents all of our uh building uh leadership teams, as well as our directors and assistant directors, and we came together around this data to look at the composite results of uh our district and uh went through an exercise
in which we evaluated those areas where we uh have seen the greatest growth, those areas uh where we saw some uh positive uh maintaining and uh asked ourselves and got curious about why is
that uh and what are our efforts that are resulting in that uh performance and then what are the areas that we haven't seen the results that we want to see and yet we uh maybe have been engaged in some work around that and it's not yet
uh delivering the results that we want to see. So for example, a concrete example I'll give to that is that comment about positive uh uh feedback home to parents. That has been a goal uh that a number of our schools have had a part as a part of their school continuous improvement uh plan and yet
that result is not being seen. So what efforts have we been engaged in and what efforts are we wanting to uh further develop or possibly shift as we move forward. So with that exercise that we did collectively as a team around all of our uh district data. Then following
that each of our uh site leaders and department leaders were provided with the summary data for their particular uh survey for their particular school or department and uh we have asked them now and they've begun to engage in this uh to bring that uh data back to their
respective in the case of school sites they're built they're building instructional leadership teams and engage in that conversation. So they've begun that here uh in late April and early May and we'll also be bringing it uh some of the summary of that
conversation with their uh leadership team to the broader staff uh community throughout the month of May and back to their builts uh where they'll engage in looking at their uh goals that they had set in their school continuous improvement plan as it relates to the
stutter survey uh because that is one of the goal areas that are uh continuous improvement plans have in them and uh begin to identify what are those things that they want to uh make adjustments for as they as we head off into the
summer. We've uh previously not done this deep dive into the data until our end of the year leadership retreat that occurs in June, but this year we moved that up so that we would go through that with our leaders and then have them go through that with their sites before we go home uh for the summer so that they
can begin to uh shape that school continuous improvement plan and be uh have some preliminary uh goals and conversations around that and then uh come back ready to have a a fully uh adopted plan in August uh for our school
continuous improvement plan. So, kind of moving that up uh now that we're in our third year of uses usage of this data. Uh we want to really make sure that we have an opportunity as uh Casey alluded to specific to the student data. for example, uh engage some of our students
around uh what is it that uh help define possibly in some cases have uh focus group conversations or with student leadership groups uh to understand what would a we're we're constantly asking ourselves what would a five look like?
Uh what what are what would that look like from the student experience? What would that look like from the uh staff experience? What would that look like from the parent experience? So, we'll be uh engaging in that work and have begun that already to this point.
Chair White, I'll turn it to you for uh questions from the board and in conversation. Are there any comments or questions for either Casey or Dan? Mary. Um Casey, can you help me understand a couple of things? uh one
when we look at the students and the top box and the top two box percentage the 34.35 and the 69.49 respectively that says it was in the 70 to 70 70 to 70th percentile and the national benchmark.
Um whereas when you go back down to the parents you actually have a larger top box uh two percentages at 3536 and 73 80.84 respectively. and yet that scored in the 20th percentile. So that's my
first question and that I I think I kind of understand where that's coming from, but I'd like to hear it from you. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to explore that a little bit more deeply with you. So when we uh create our benchmark
reports, the benchmark reports I would I would separate that from the discussion of of the top box. So when we look at the benchmark reporting, we're looking
at the the range of where we see those scores reporting nationally and what I would say why you see the difference in the percentile ranks between the adult I'll just put
the two together. I would say employees and parents and caregivers as adults. Those benchmark numbers are lower than your students. What we see in Prior Lake Savage is your students. While the mean
numbers come in maybe at a similar range as your parents, your students in Prior Lake Savage Area School District view their experience much more positively than we see students around the
country reporting their experience. So, it's not necessarily the same benchmark numbers or means that translate across those benchmarks. It's really separating out each three survey groups have their
own benchmark reports. Okay. Did that help? That's kind of what I thought your answer was going to be. Um but it it the the disperate you know responses and stuff like that on a national scale and why adults judge
differently than students and how to compare those. I think um I would like to you know actually when the learning leaders are looking at those and and seeing the actual data behind that I'd like to see that broken down a little bit more um to actually understand the
the impact and how you actually satisfy both population groups I think is what it is right. Um uh and then another question that I had had to do with um the I think it was the parents
um you have in yellow on the parent caregivers the table three the item means an overall mean by survey administration on that page number six um that's highlighted in yellow and that's a negative0.03
03 on the I believe my child has the necessary classroom supplies equipment for effective learning. And I'm wondering why that was highlighted in yellow versus other numbers that were not negative that were not Oh, I see what
you're indicating. Yep. So, one of the things that we were seeking to do on that particular slide was call out items that were on the higher end of the survey, the um the
response, not necessarily the change. So, let me show you what I mean there. Give me one moment. Okay. So what um item number six, correct? Correct.
Okay. So this column here that has the delta indicates the change in the 25 survey over the previous year. So, this item here went down slightly,
but is one of your higher items on the survey for overall scores. We probably should have also boxed number four. I'm treated with respect at this school, but our aim there was to highlight some of
the higher individual items by the the mean of that item, not necessarily the change in results from this year over last year. That makes sense. Okay. And I do wish
you had highlighted number four too because that was what I was really confused kind of about under understandable and I absolutely own um that there should have been a yellow box around that one as well. So very good eye and good catch on that.
Um, and then my last question is actually to the administration because I'm noticing that our overall parent g caregiver response was quite a bit higher than last spring and I know we had some discussions about this last
year because the timing of it, we had the we had the strategic plan going on, we had other surveys going on, etc. But I just like to hear from administration on why you believe that the number is almost you it's quite a bit higher um
than uh what we had last spring. So I'll just share that uh one of the things that u we discussed last year was during the time of this administration we are going through um some really tough negotiations that went very public
and we believe a lot of that got captured in the the results of last year's survey and um you know as as we worked through some of those concerns or some of the issues that we were having during that time frame. I think parents
saw our abilities as uh administration, teachers, etc. to work through some of the challenges that were maybe keeping us apart to kind of bring us back together. And so I think we're picking up on some of that that we've started this year and we've gone through this year um in a very different fashion
compared to when this was administered. I think that's the largest from the central kind of overall district uh perception. Then in terms of the connections uh for our schools where our parents really meet the district if you will. One of the things that we do as
leadership team as leadership team members is this notion of rounding and how we can begin to address. Um so for example when I take a look at where something went down I think uh Dr. Edwards alluded to the uh the positive
phone calls home that you know as we start to unpack this we're going to bifrocate elementary compared to secondary because elementary was a very specific universal goal and so do we have differences between elementary and secondary and is this picking up more of
the secondary and if so we understand that um and so we would have rounding conversations okay principal Lex tell me a little bit about what your efforts were to engage engage families at home. Um, what were your intentional efforts? What types of calls? Where where are
your logs? And so we do these rounding. So when I go to schools and visits, I will round with this data to start having these be some entry point conversations. I think I might even talk to a couple of you as well as board directors when you're going out to schools last year that use this because this is where this particular school
might be um focusing um on some of their efforts. And so I think the intentionality that our school leaders and their leadership teams have had around their parent metric scores to ensure that they're having a better experience as parents. That is something that I would attribute to because we've
now woven this directly into their continuous improvement plans frontward facing and that's something that as we know that's out there kind of what gets measured gets done and so I think some of that's being picked up this year as well. Yeah, and I was just going to emphasize that just a little bit in
terms of weekly uh or monthly communications to parents, making reference to the work. And I think part of that is uh helping then call attention to where our focus needs to continue to be when parents are taking this survey and they're saying, "Well,
uh you're saying that, for example, positive notes home is something you're working on, and I'm not feeling that." uh that's you know part of that curiosity thing that we'll engage in and continue to engage in but putting that out there uh in front and I think uh the fact that we're in year three of
utilization of this data uh to to drive both the school continuous improvement plan and our communication strategies uh with our parent caregivers I think is is evidenced here by you're listening to what we're saying um and therefore we're going to give you the feedback because I
think we all know that about surveys if uh if feedback is given and there isn't action around it um we're less engaged to participate and I'll just add one last thing to that the intentional we and we've talked about this as a learning leaders group um the
intentionality of our learning leaders um to explicitly explicitly uh declare when they are taking action around an aspect of this survey so for example um again just we'll just keep using this I When when we do a newsletter or if I'm
meeting with my PTC, I'll tell my PTC, you know, based upon our school data, it looks like positive calls home was something that came up fairly low. As a result of that, we're doing these three things and being very intentional over the course of the year that you're
calling out when those three things are happening, keeping that on the forefront of um our parents' minds that you said you were going to do this. you you are showing evidence that you continue to do this and so if I don't ever hear anything of it then I think nothing gets done right so that was one of and I
think about another district that I was in that was one of the things that we learned of our just just kind of breathing life into what we are saying we're going to do and letting folks know when we're doing it. Um so that's very much on the consciousness of uh our stakeholders whether it's our students
or our parent caregivers or our staff. That's that's another piece that we've talked about too. Director Johnson. Yes. So, um can you give me or tell me the reasoning uh why you chose to ask
the students if they would recommend the school district versus recommending their school? Yeah. So, that's a question. Um, it's on our standard set and um, I'd have to go back and I will be honest with you, I've
never had anyone ask me that. So, I don't want to give you an answer that is constructed solely from my mind. Um, but I can go back and ask our expert sur uh, survey team around that and Dr. Thomas uh, forward that back to you um, to be
able to share back with with the board. Is that reasonable? I'm sorry that I don't have a a direct methodology on that for you, but I want to make sure you have accurate information on that one. Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate it. And then um one other thing, uh this one
might be for uh Dr. Edwards as far as the two items that were uh annotated in red. Do we have the data? So, it's number 15 and 16, and I can read them out to you if you if you would prefer.
Okay. Um students for students. Yeah. Yes, that's correct. Um do you have the data broken down into grade level, elementary, middle, middle, and high to
see where that is coming from to see just I think like Dr. Thomas was was saying earlier if it is more focused in an elementary, if it's in a middle, if it's in a high to really dig deeper into that. So, so we we have the school data
broken down uh not disagregated by grade level at a particular school, but each school receives their data. And I think I mentioned earlier that one of the exercises that analyzing this data right now gives us a chance to engage with some of our student leadership team to
help understand uh better uh what what a a higher score what a five would look like. Um so we have the data not broken down by individual student uh grade level but by composite of the school grade bands not grade level. Yep.
Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just Yeah. One other question about the participants for the students. So I saw the participant level dropped quite a bit um for students. Did you administer it the same way? And I'm just curious like what are all grades given the survey um and
how was that administered? Yes. Uh we did administer it the same way and that's a speaking of curiosity that is a curiosity when we uh because we approached it in a similar manner to each of the past two years. We're a little bit perplexed by that and curious
about that and uh we'll continue to analyze uh that and again engage with our students. Um is there a reason they're not participating? Uh we approach it in the same manner. So and sorry is it all grades that are
given the survey or Yes, all grades. Yep. Go ahead. Oh, that was that was actually my question was about the grades. Um, but you answered that, so thank you. I had one other question. Um, when you get get
into the um net promoter questions, particularly when we're looking at the ones with the parent and caregivers where there was a drop in the net promoter score or in the employee group, I believe there was a No, that one actually went up. Um, how do you dive deeper into that
data when there's not like in the other ones there's more specific items, but when you're really referring to the net per promoter score and you see we see a slight drop um more of a drop from 2023 than even from 2024. How do you
dive deeper into that data to really understand what what are they what's what are the reason for the drop? Director Atinson. So what staff will end up doing particularly at the building level um which I think is where this
conversation can really take hold is um every building gets their raw data set u and so the building principal will start to look at um the comments around um certain questions that would uh inform
um context for this. So, if I begin to see a theme that's coming from some of the uh narrative for my parent group, that gives me an opportunity to then go back to my parent leadership group um and just start having conversations and or even with my teaching my building
leadership team to say, I'm seeing these two themes coming out in the the qualitative data. Um and this is what we encourage our building principles to do is not to go into the comments right away. use comments as context um to inform what you're seeing
quantitatively. So when we look at that, that's where um individual buildings can begin to have those conversations with their parent leadership groups or they're building instructional leadership teams um and maybe that becomes a conference question too. So if I'm at the you know parent teacher
conferences, we might have a theme that we want to explore. So we might ask that simple question. So those are some strategies that principles can do, not necessarily unilaterally, but that's one way that we can begin to get at what's behind that net promoter score of that particular question. Um, and then be,
you know, see what the responses are from there. So I yeah, I appreciate that and I think that's relevant for the second part of that question on how likely are you recommend school. But what I was wearing referring to is the first part of that question where it's really about the organization. So it's a
higher level and as a parent who goes to conferences and I get seven minutes to talk to my teacher, I don't think we're going to get to those questions. Yeah. So how are we as an organization taking a deeper dive into this data particular to the organization? Again, very similar to what I was sharing. So rounding
conversations for me would with principles and Dr. Edwards and others would be to understand what are you hearing at the building level that's important for us that we can begin to aggregate up. And so when we start hearing those same themes say, okay, I'm hearing this consistently across secondary or I'm hearing this across
elementary or this is just in general K12 a theme that's coming up. That's when we begin to say what is a district level strategy then that we might be able to take on um because it's impacting multiple schools or we know that we have a elementary or a secondary
uh area that we need to focus in on. Um so for example um this this score uh when you take a look at that slight dip that came in the summer or the spring of 20 sorry spring of 24 uh that dip there. One of the
conversations that we were um kind of looking at was marrying that with some context around um safety specifically on the bus and that became a pretty dominant theme. So, and and that's something that we said that's a district
initiative that we need to address. And so, uh with the support of our deans and our transportation company, we did summer PD and training around uh behavioral management, student engagement, um strategies, etc., so that we can begin to disrupt maybe that being
an aspect that we can manage at the district level. So, that's kind of how it works both at the building as well as then at the organizational or at the district level. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yep. I just wanted one clarification on the students. It was 312, grades 312. We do not uh survey our
kindergarten, first and second graders. Well, thank you. Um I'd like to just say um first of all, I'm very pleased with the takeaway. the um I I do believe we have a commitment
to com continuous improvement and I appreciate that the scores reflected that. So I wanted to say that first. Um questions uh Dr. Edwards or Dr. Thomas um as the discussions take place with
the learning leaders and the built teams um and goals are being set for the upcoming year um how is the strat plan utilized for filtering because you know the survey there's many many questions
surveyed there's there's many and um when we have a lot of focuses sometimes we have no focus And so, um, I'm wondering how the how you'll set the goals in aligning that
with the the Strat plan. That's my first question. Yeah. Uh, we I'm trying to recall how much conversation we had at the board table around our school continuous improvement plan specific with the new
strategic plan. uh we we modified our school continuous improvement plan to reflect the new strategic plan as we set course for this current school year and our intent is to continue to do that. We've been in conversations with our learning leaders and they've frankly seen that alignment and appreciate that
and want to continue that trend. So within that, taking each of our priorities uh specifically and looking at questions that get at that specific priority to narrow down the question we might want to focus on, the area that we might want to create strategies around
and measure uh the results of. So definitely uh honing in on that is is an important exercise that we will uh engage that each of our sites will engage with their builts and create their skip that does have that alignment. Very good.
Um and then my second question, last question. um after you you had mentioned end of April going into May having these discussions, will the um will the findings or the
um summaries of those discussions come back at the board table or is that just maybe in our individual one-on- ons? I'm just curious if that'll be a future discussion. Vice Chair Bolian, those would be coming by way. So how it would be reported back would be in the school
continuous improvement plans as well as the department continuous improvement plans. Um all the learning and where they say okay this is where we need to focus that's where they'll be and again part of our strategy is to make those frontward facing as well. And so that would be uploaded so that the community
could also see like this is the focus area that we're working on. And then every fall when buildings do their state of their schools, the expectation is that they're covering that and this is built into that state of the school address as well. And that will be permanently uploaded um for the
community to be able to watch and learn as well. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments for Casey or admin? Okay. Thank you, Casey. Thank you very much. Thank you, Casey.
All right, moving on to our next item of business, the 202526 uh meal prices. Director Malone, good evening, Board Chair White, Dr. Thomas, and everybody else. How are you?
Very good. The weather passed us. So, my kids are all home safe. All right. Mine should be queued up here, correct? Yes. There. Here I am. All right. I have a fun picture
there. Today is our first day of child nutrition appreciation week. Um on Friday it's nationally recognized as school nutrition lunch hero day. So I have a fun picture of some of our um Glendale staff there. Um all right. Uh before I do my
meal price request and my wellness update, I thought I'd just give a little um picture of the landscape of what's happening nationally and at the state level with school nutrition programs and nutrition programs in general. [Music] Um you know as you know we have school
nutrition programs to feed kids healthy foods and also support domestic agriculture. Um, in fact, the School Lunch Act of 1946 was enacted to um make sure that our young men at the time were wellnourished because they were
enlisting for war and many of them were coming to um their um were coming malnourished. And so, uh, the other part of it was that a lot of the domestic agriculture and the farmers because our young and older men were out at war, um,
the agriculture was rotting in the on the vines. And so, they thought, let's do this, um, to support domestic agriculture and also make sure that our young people are um, well nourished. So, that is why we have school nutrition programs.
Um, as you probably know, uh, school schools receive federal and state reimbursements in the form of cash or, you know, it's kind of money that comes into the O2 fund, which is the fund that is for school nutrition programs in Minnesota. Um, and also in entitlement dollars where we can use those
entitlement dollars to purchase domestic agricultural products. Um, the state of Minnesota also gives us um, uh, reimbursements also in the form of cash and also in the form of grants. US Department of Agriculture again also um gives us
reimbursements or grants. Basically, we can apply for grants. Um in February, the budget res resolution in the US House passed a bill that directs the House Agriculture Committee to cut $230 billion from its uh budget. And the
majority of these cuts were aimed at nutrition programs. So, um, nutrition programs such as school nutrition and SNAP, which is the, um, supplemental nutrition assistance program. Um, the first big cut that school nutrition, um, programs experienced was on March 7th
when USDA announced that they were cutting about a billion dollars of money going towards nutrition programs, again, SNAP and WIC and um, school nutrition programs. 660 million of that 1 billion was directly um allocated to um
basically farm-toschool grants for schools um which is part of the Patrick Lehey farm-toschool grant program. Um in addition to those cuts um as I've shared in the past, school nutrition programs have also had their supply
chain assistance funds um eliminated which in Prior Lake was about $300,000 per year. And then the keep kids fed act also ended the same year that the supply chain assistance funds ended which was um 2223 um and that was an extra 40 cents per lunch and 15 cents per
breakfast reimbursement. Um when I was at the US capital in March um with other school nutrition professionals, we were really urging both sides of the aisle to reconsider these um you know these cuts. School nutrition programs the money that
is funneled in from the state goes directly into the state of Minnesota. So, if I get a grant from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, um those funds have to support farmers that are in Minnesota. In fact, Michael's Foods, who is a local Minnesota based company,
um they have some farms that are on the border of Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the cows walk across the border. And same with in Iowa. and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has eliminated them from a um receiver of our grants because we can't prove that every single
egg is actually uh laid in Minnesota. Wanted to put the appropriate word there. Um so anyways, very you know very very specific what we can do with these funds. Um similarly at the the federal level money that comes
in from the um federal government uh schools have to follow the byamerican provision meaning that we have to um all of our vendors have to um declare that they are um producing their goods and services in the United States. So really dollars that funnel into school
nutrition programs go right into domestically um supporting kids our future and our um local economies. So that's what we were advocating for when we were at the um US House and um Senate in March. Um luckily feeding kids and
supporting farmers is generally a pretty bipartisan um topic. So we were received pretty well, but but still um the cuts are still out there. Other things that are in that a bill um that can possibly um affect us and this is at the
federal level. I'll get to the state. They're kind of coming, you know, they they affect each other. But the first one is um the community eligibility provision which is um C up there. Right now the community elig elig eligibility provision C is at 40%. And again it's a
federal program. So, if a district can um is can qualify for C, meaning that they have 40% of their students that qualify for free reduced price meals, then the feds pick up the whole district and the whole district is free, which means that now the whole district is on
the federal government's checkbook or, you know, the money is coming from the feds. So, you can see how that would affect if this changes the state of Minnesota, which they're proposing to raise that to 60%. So, if they if it goes through, then you have to prove you
have to have 60% of your students that qualify for free reduced price meals in order for the feds to pick up the whole district. Um, Emily, yes. Can I interject a question really quick because I'll forget it. Yeah. So, if we don't reach the 40%
then is it the then it's federally not covered or does then is how does that work? Yeah. So, I'm kind of speaking on a national level. Right now, Prior Lake Savage Area Schools does not qualify for C. Okay. Um but but if you um if you could see how it would affect Minnesota
if that changes the 20% of those schools that are now um not going to qualify because they are 59% or less then they would become a state you know they'd be they be a state responsibility because with free meals for kids we heavily rely
on um the federal reimbursements um to have free meals for kids be a viable program and effectively spreading then the impact aid of uh food nutritional programs to more districts and so we receive fewer dollars.
Yes. Yep. Um and I kind of I'll touch on it a little bit even more so it'll kind of make a little bit more sense as I keep going here. So if C changes um it's about 42,000 schools in Minnesota that would drop off of the federal government's checkbook and end up on the
state government's checkbook basically. So, meaning that free meals for kids would be more expensive for Minnesota if that changes. Um, another thing is this broad-based categorical eligibility. Um, they're proposing to take that away. Um,
so what that means is that if a family applies for services with the Department of Health and Human Human Services, for example, for Medicaid, SNAP, WICK, they are automatically um eligible for free meals for kids or
free reduced price meals or they're they don't have to fill out that application for educational benefits, which is traditionally what they would have to fill out um to apply for free reduced price meals. So they fill out one form with one agency and then we all share that information and they qualify, you
know, based on their income guidelines for all of the programs. What happens is these families are typically filling out many forms and they kind of get form fatigue and when they get to school nutrition programs, it's back to school time. You know, it's really hard to get families to fill out those forms. So it's been really great um that we've
been participating in this broad-based categorical eligibility. So, if they're already qualifying with Medicaid, SNAP, WICK, they automatically qualify for us. The way that that helps the state of Minnesota is that if they qualify for free meals, the government, the federal
government is picking up that bill, right? Um, can I can I just add something? Now, the federal government picks up that bill through the agricultural department, correct? Yes. Okay. Yes. And I think that's a that's a significant thing because that also then
helps the farmers. Correct. Yeah. So it's not just schools that are affected. Correct. Yeah. The um school nutrition programs um all of our funding is administered by the US Department of Agriculture. Um
so I'll just leave it there. Um so uh the last thing that they're proposing in that um a bill is that um income verification for all applications at 100%. Meaning that if a family fills out an application for WIC or free reduced price meals, they have to also provide
income verification at the time of application. So they would have to have their last two paychecks turned in with their application for educational benefits. Um, I don't know of any system that even has that capability. We don't have that. You know, our our online programs right
now where families can fill out that online. Um, you know, they would be dropping off very sensitive information about themselves if they were filling out a paper form. We don't have a way for them to upload it at the time. So, that's a really tricky one. Um right now we have an income verification process
that we do every November where um we are told by the state of Minnesota um at random selection who we have to verify and then we go through that process with a small number of families um and that's already it's a difficult process so it'll be tough but um but that's in
that a bill um then and that's all at the federal level and then the Minnesota bills there's nine of them total. I've just kind of highlighted these three. Um this uh Senate File 2965 is um providing a free milk without the purchase of a
meal. Um so students that brought a home lunch or did not want to eat the meal would be able to come through and get just a free milk. There's been a lot of confusion around that, I think. Um so that's that's that one. It's got quite a bit of support. Um, House File
2387 is um expanding what's allowable to be paid by the O2 fund and um possibly being able to pay for some of the 01 fund things that are traditionally taken out of the general fund. And then the last one is House File 2201. This one is the more
complicated one. It's um essentially adding a fourth category of eligibility. So right now we have free, reduced, and full pay. This one is actually they're calling it enhanced eligibility. So if you um qualify or if
you are at 500% of the federal poverty level, which for a family of four in Minnesota or federally is about $156,000, then you would qualify for free meals or free meals for kids, excuse me. Um but anybody else would
then be full pay. So we'd end up with another category. Um they have free meals at breakfast still in that bill. This would only pertain to lunch. Um clearly that means that we're filling
out forms again. So that's kind of the biggest um hurdle that we'll get through if if that one does go through. Um any questions about stuff going on? Yes. Question. Good. Um the it
was House File 2387. That's the one that can backfill the 01 fund. Is that correct? But only after three years. Did I read that correctly in the bill? So it's you have to have uh um the surplus after after three years. Yes. Mhm. Okay.
Yeah. And then the the Senate file I'm sorry I cut you off. No, you're fine. Um they I I the details of it have not been quite worked out. Um school nutrition funds O2 funds are a mixture of federal dollars and state dollars. And so it's a
little bit of a gray area of how they're going to figure out which dollars are state dollars because that's the money that would be able to backfill as you said right the 01 fund. But the federal dollars would have to stay in the nutrition fund. Okay. And then just
going through the the Senate file bill, it mentioned a lot about kindergarteners. Is that for everyone to have that or is it only for the kindergarteners? I don't know. When I read it, it just was really muddy. Yeah. So, the um this is for everyone. The
kindergarteners already have a free meal program. Okay. Yep. Got it. Thank you for the clarification. You're welcome. Any other questions? anyone and that's stuff. All right, continue. Okay, I am going to bring in a
display for you to visually see what lunches look like today at Prior Lake High School. I've got my assistant over here, my Vanna. So, these are um every day um at all of our secondary schools, we have four
lunch options. So, we've got what we call the blue line, the gold line, the laker lunch, which is a grab-and-go sandwich. It's the same thing every day. And then we have the bowl line. Um, yeah, I think if everybody can hear me, I'll just quickly point it out. So, this is um the Laker lunch. It's a
graband go item available in different areas or they can just grab and go, go through the line. Gets them through really quickly. Today, we had tiki masala on the menu. Um, and then you get fruit, a veg, and a milk with it. This is we had um a salad bar on the menu today and you got a choice between white
chicken chili or um homemade chicken rice soup. The white chicken chili is also homemade. And then these were the toppings that they offered today. You get fruit, the red stick and milk. And that's $3.25. And then the bowl um you can choose between beef or chicken. And then
um we have a nacho, a burrito, and you can put it on rice or you can get fruit and milk with it. So currently our options today at Prior Lake High School, they were all $3.25 each. Lunch prices at Prior Lake High School have not changed in about eight years, since
201718. Um we all know a lot has happened since 2017 2018. Um the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics estimates that prices for food were 32% higher in 2024 than 2017.
Um so I'll just give you you know this is probably well known by some of you but a short time after we had that 20 27 2018 school year um global pandemic happened and so it was not the time to raise prices anywhere and price uh school lunches um ended up being free
then for the 1920 school year. Um, Prior Lake High School did go on that free meal pandemic feeding um, for one year. Um, and then we decided to go off of it because we were not able to offer the students what they wanted. Um, but we decided of course to keep meal prices
stable. Um, then coming out, I don't know when COVID really ended, but you know, if you say 2022, it was kind of dying down. We did not want to change prices at that time either. our community was still going through. We were all experiencing things together. Then, uh, Governor Walls
implemented free meals for kids, um, with a three-month turnaround, fourmonth turnaround, I think it was, for the 22 23 school year. Again, not the right time to raise prices for Prior Lake High School when we were choosing to not opt in to the program at that time. We were
we had already opted out of the school meal program and had decided not to opt into it and we were told by the Minnesota Department of Ed at the time, you can't anyways. We only have four months. There's no way that we can get you on to the program. So, we stayed off of the program. But at the end of that
school year, right around this time about a year ago, we decided that we would survey um our community. Uh we did a couple of surveys. We decided to remain off of the program. the board decided, I should say, to stay off of the program last year around this time.
Um, so that was last year. We did not raise the prices. Um, we are now almost all the way through our second year of free meals for kids. Um, again, if you guys have noticed what's going on with grocery bills in your own homes, imagine
what Prior Lake Savage School's grocery bill looks like. It is enormously higher. Um, you know, the center of the plate is one of the things that we talk about when it just to make kind of talking about meal prices easier. So, center of the plate used to be 60 70 80 cents
about, you know, and if you were at 80 cents, you were making sure that you were balancing the rest of your week or your day with some um less expensive items so that you could serve that higher price 80 cents. We at a$150 solid, you know,$180 sometimes for that center of the plate. um you know, wages
have gone up, prices of everything have gone up. Let's not even talk about eggs today because nobody wants to hear about that. But um everything is going up. So, um what I would like to do is um request
that we raise the prices from $3.25 to $3.75 at Prior Lake High School. And this would be effective for the um 2526 school year. Nothing else would be raised. Breakfast at the high school would stay free. Um price of adult
lunches and adult breakfasts would stay the same. It would just be the um price of the lunch. So you'd get all of this for $3.75. Okay. Um, I will entertain a motion to accept the uh 50 cent price increase for
the 2526 school year at this time by Director Atinson. Second. Second by Director Mason. Any further comments or questions? Uh, one question. Johnson. Yes.
uh do you foresee in the future of having to come right and I understand all the things that happened in the last since the 2017 2018 and I do not wish that upon us ever again um having to
come back and ask for another raise in prices. Yes. Yes. Everything continues to raise. So I h I looked at a history of our school meal prices. is I think we have history from like 1983 um 1983 to late 90s you know we raise
prices every other year or so um starting around the 1999 early 2000s I have it in front of I don't I don't have it immediately in front of me every year we raise prices about 10 cents um and you know what what we're doing with the school nutrition program is we're covering all of our wages all of our benefits the increased price of um
energy the increased price of trash trash recycling um paper, you know, it's not just food price increases that we're paying for with the um meal increase. So, we're paying for everything. So, I don't know of anything that's gotten
cheaper in the last from year to year um really. So, yes, I do anticipate having to raise meal prices um more in line with what we used to do, which was every year we asked to increase, you know, five or 10 cents. That's more typical.
Dr. Friends, so I have two questions. Yes. Um, and I understand these the answer to these questions probably won't change the outcome, but I think it's important that we uh talk about them. And one is where do we compare with other districts that aren't on the food
program with our meal prices that are off the free lunch overall? Yes. So, in Minnesota, there's one other district. Um, it's Byron, but um uh I want I think
their meal prices I haven't looked it up recently, but I want to say they're like seven or eight dollars. Really? Yeah. Um I was at a conference u well actually when I was in DC uh somebody spoke um from Texas. They're not on the program. Their whole district is not on the program. He's on a He's got an $8, a
$10, and a $12 high school meal. So, we're still pretty low. And we're I think we're pretty low compared to the alocart at the hybrid schools, too, right? Yes. Yeah, we are. Okay. Because I think that's an important uh statistic. Yep. Um the other thing is is
looking at our overall budget. As you stated, we're going to be going through negotiations again. So, it's just constant, you know, obviously increases in cost of living, the cola stuff into uh many of the other uh aspects of running the nutritional program, but um
with regards to cost versus our our revenue stream and all that, um where are we breaking even? Are we dipping below the x-axis here? I mean, where where are we overall? Not dipping below.
Um, and you know, we our access is wonky because of the last couple of years. It's just been really hard, but we are we are consistently um producing revenue. Is that that is that your question? Yes. We have not we have not gone into our fund balance to cover any
costs since I've been here in 11 years. But I assume if we don't raise Oh, the the that trajectory will start to go negative. and possible will it go negative in the next couple of years? Are we trying to stave that off? Um, again, going back to Director Johnson's
question about the continuous increases. Um, do we have a projection? I I don't Okay. Because it's because we've come out of COVID and free meals for kids. I my my estimates are just I I
don't have anything to compare to. One year to the next is so different. Um, you know, I used to be able to look at it because, you know, we had 45% of our kids eat lunch and I just knew it was happening. And everything lately has just been so um unpredictable. Um, wages and benefits, everything's been very
unpredictable. So, I haven't I cannot say that quite yet. Um I would say that with so we are in the second year of free meals for kids and if I can compare you know free meals for kids and our participation in that if I have maybe three years I could call that a a trend.
Um but right now I've just got one and a half years of that and then I've got and and I'm comparing then while the high school is not on the program their trend. So it's I got like one and a half years of data right now. Does that make sense? It does. But thank you for
answering. Yep. Director Justin, I did a quick Yeah. Google search. So, looks like Byron High School's got three different meal prices. 410, 4.85, and 5.85. Okay. For lunch.
What kind of lunches do they have? They've got What's on the menu? Okay. Baskets, pizza, graband go is 410. Baskets, pizza, graband go. So that was with the free milk uh with a bottled water is the 4.85 and then the chef meal
is 5.85. Got it. So they're above us. Um Yeah. Yeah. They're significantly above us. We also allow our kids to eat um as many fruits and vegetables as they like. We don't do portion sizes for those. Um and as you guys know, we have larger portion sizes
at the high school. Um so and they still can pay for doubles. And they can still pay for doubles allocart. And they can buy al cart. Trust me. I know. I'm sure you parents understand. Me as well. I've got kids there.
Any other comments or questions? All right. Hearing none, we have a motion and a second on the table. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. That motion carries. 70. Annual wellness update. Director. All right. Thank you. So I will keep going
here. Uh so I am required to do a wellness update every year. Um it doesn't change that much from year to year. So those of you who were here last year, it's going to look very similar. Uh we do a trienal assessment and we did that last year. So um I don't I didn't
have any requirements to do any more of a um assessment um evaluation this year, but I thought I would just kind of explain um what a local school wellness policy is and who regulates it. Um the federal law requires that uh local
school wellness policies um are in place for participating schools in the national school lunch program and school breakfast program. You have to have very specific goals around nutrition pro promotion, education, physical activity, and other school-based activities that promote student
wellness. Um I won't read all of those. Uh it's, you know, basically saying that we have to follow the regulations that we have to follow every day. Uh we can't, you know, advertise foods. can't um use food as rewards. Uh we have to follow smart snacks in
schools. Um our wellness policy is on the um child nutrition tab of the our website. Um it's under that cute little green tab right there. It'll take you to our trienal assessment. We use the wellsat.
Um so there's a copy of our trienal assessment which we did in March of 2024. And then there's also the wellness policy there. Um, our area for opportunity is to add opportunities for our community to provide input to our wellness policy
on our website. So our our uh wellness policy, I don't believe, is up until 26 and 27. Um, we just had a Minnesota Department of Ed administrative review. The only um suggestion that she had for me for our wellness policy was that we
um we have to designate somebody as a wellness coordinator. So it says over and over that the director of child nutrition will implement this, will oversight this, will but I it's never stated that the director of child nutrition is the wellness coordinator. So a little bit of a tweak of language
will go in there. Um and then also just allowing our community to provide input to the wellness policy should they want to. So we can post that on the public notices of our website when we are getting closer to re-evaluating that policy. And that's really it for me. Any
questions? Questions for Director Malone? All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is a readact update. This is a update only. No action will be required. directors Edwards and
Herman. All right, I will kick it off here and uh we will have then uh anou that we would uh ask for action on, but we wanted to set some context around that. Um back at the uh teaching and learning, I think it was
the April teaching and learning meeting uh now should have remembered it was April or May. Yes, was it April? Uh we we did uh take the teaching and learning committee through an update on where we are at in our progress uh with regard to
the read act. Uh just as a reminder, our teachers uh K5 teachers, our intervention teachers K12, our special education teachers K12, uh as well as recent addition, our EL teachers were
added to this list. Um have been engaged in the redact training. We chose uh the OLA uh uh program and uh that is a we it's a 70 hour uh it's it's was advertised as less than 70 hours but
we've found that 70 hours is is uh what we've uh found it to be necessary in order to do well. Uh and so we are in year one and coming to uh conclusion of year one. It has nine modules and those we have gotten through modules. Uh the
target was to get through the first four modules of that uh the conclusion by the conclusion of this school year and we're progressing well in that. Uh we're seeing that our teachers are seeing a lot and we shared uh information about this with our teaching and learning
advisory around uh the implications of the science of reading that is the foundational uh body of research that was uh behind the readact and we uh we have taken our teachers uh through that training. They've been engaged. It's an
online training uh as well as some follow-up conversations in their respective learning teams and we look forward to that work continuing as we move forward into year two and complete the the training at the conclusion of
next school year. Uh we were given that extension uh as a result of last legislative session, the May of 2024 legislative session. The original timeline would have had us completing it by this July. uh on June 30th. Uh and we
chose the two-year path for multiple reasons. One of which was most of the teachers impacted by this, specifically all of our classroom teachers at the K5 level were engaged and are engaged this year in year two of our math implementation. So we had taken on that uh lift. Our teachers had taken on that
lift. And so we felt uh it would be best to spread this work out in the redact training and over the course of two years. and we've had very positive response. We've had a a great uh experience and working relationship with uh our teachers and our team, our small
team in the LA uh teaching and learning office that has been supporting our teachers, our curriculum specialist Gwen Molden, our uh special education curriculum specialist Sherry Anderson, our two of our lead uh folks as well as some other administrators. Uh Katie
Sherman, our principal at Five Hawks, was one of our first people who participated a year ago in a crash course in a short amount of time to help us decide that this OLA training was the the route that we wanted to go as a district. And so they uh have been
instrumental and others when you when you mention names you uh risk miss leaving some people out but those have been some very instrumental uh people in helping our teachers to uh work through the training to date and we are looking
forward to uh completing the training by the conclusion of next school year. And this is a segue into the next item on the agenda. uh I'll just kind of give uh some introduction to that in that we
engaged with teachers uh and heard their feedback about how it's going and and some of them want to finish it out uh ahead of schedule if you will um and they want to continue uh in that
training and not have a long gap over the course of the summer months. So, uh, we had set out a course to do modules 1 through four this year and modules 5 through nine during next school year. Uh, a number of teachers we believe are going to be interested in continuing
that during the summer months so that they can uh, complete it while it's fresh. Uh, as well as um, be prepared. A number of those people we anticipate are probably people who are part of our literacy committee who are beginning to look at resources associated with the readact which we just had our first
presentation to that committee last week with one of the approved uh vendors that uh through the readact was approved to be uh an adopted uh curriculum through MDE. We have additional uh presentations coming up here in the
next few weeks around that. So we anticipate that a number of our teachers who are part of that and others want to potentially complete the work and you will see a uh memorandum of understanding to reflect that in the next piece. And uh I think the other uh
comment that is with regarding to readact is once again we will continue to vet those resources throughout the summer months uh and bring updates as we are making decisions uh either to the teaching and learning committee which
has our last meeting here in a couple of weeks. So we we won't have had our presentations from all the vendors at this point. Um, but we will certainly keep that committee up up to speed as well as you collectively as a school board here moving into uh the preparation for the upcoming school year
should we identify uh some resources that we want to field test in our district next year with relation to the implementation and preparing for full implementation uh of the readact the following year. So that would be the
2627 school year. So, uh, those are the comments related to that, uh, that we wanted to give as context to the next item on the agenda. Sorry, before we go to the next item, are there any questions for Dr. Edwards? I have a question. Hopefully, it'll make sense.
um with some of the staff wanting to uh continue through the summer months and not wait until the next school year to resume training. Um does that take additional resources or is this a on are they doing it on
their [Music] time? Vice Chair Bowling and members of the board um this goes in a little bit into the the next one under theou. So, we'll have two different tracks um that will provide an option for our staff. Um and one of the tracks during the summer
will provide them compensation time to flex that time throughout the school year. If they choose to do the school year track, then they would have that time during contract time to complete those hours. So, there's two different tracks that they'll have that option to um select from um and then have the
corresponding compensation from there, whether that's the compensation flex time or it's being completed during their contract time during the during the school year. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? I did. And that's kind of uh piggybacking on uh
what um Vice Chair Bullan just asked. Um you know, we had talked a lot in the in the about the read Act and how it was going to take some of the time from our full day staff um days off uh during the
uh during the school year that we had authorized the administration to do. So if some teachers take this and some teachers don't, how is that going to be balanced against going into those um uh teacher meetings that talk about let's say you know the the test scores and how
students are doing and stuff like that. Is that going to disrupt that in some way? So, so the the plan has always been uh that for over this two-year training that any of our staff development time, staff development days or most I should
say most of our staff development time and days been committed to this uh participation in this training. Uh we we do have some requirements for live session uh engagement and those requirements uh continue to be uh
altered as as we learn uh from MDE and the interpretation of the read act. Um but we will have those live sessions during our professional development time. We will also uh we are beginning to have conversations with regard to
goal setting for learning teams for next year that may include or could include work uh related to the uh redact implementation or uh continuation of math goal setting that we've been doing. And then our our we will continue to
utilize our principles and their respective builts will continue to have conversation about utilization of staff meeting time uh for some of that work as well. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. If there are none,
we'll move on to the uh memorandum of understanding. Director Herman, anything further? Chair Chair White, members of the board, thank you. I just want to say thank you to the um PLCA leadership um for meeting with us on this. We had a really successful um negotiations to
come up with thisou really putting together um multiple feedback that they hear on their end and our end to come up with this plan to offer options for our staff um to to complete this robust training. So what you see in front of you is an agreed upon umou between the
uh district and the union that we're presenting for your consideration tonight. um that covers all of the required um negotiated items in order to spend the professional development dollars that are allocated for this. Um so you'll see all of the different items between eligibility, compensation,
um and the rest of the the required negotiated items throughout theou. All right. Uh is the chair will now entertain a motion to accept the readact memor memorandum of understanding. Is there a motion? So made by director
Olstead. Second. Second by director France. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. That carries. 70. White. Chair white. Uh there was one
other thing not related to the read act that I uh related to uh professional development and our school calendar that I just wanted to call attention to. It uh school calendar as you recall for next year was adopted. Um, and we are
just making a couple of slight edits in conference dates at the elementary level, but when we post this out, uh, just wanted to acknowledge that we had a couple of, uh, we have 10 hours of conferences built in in each set of conferences. And we previously have had
4hour uh, sessions and two four-hour sessions and a two-hour session. We're going to shift to two three-hour sessions and a 4-hour session to accommodate with the the calendar and with anticipated uh larger class sizes
at our elementary level to make sure we can get all of the conferences and just to be more efficient with our time as well as align with the other components. I just wanted to call attention to that. It's it's kind of under the oposes of
the of the um staff development plan and flexibility to to meet our our needs of our students and families uh and and staff and what they have for training needs as well. So, okay, appreciate that. All right. Next on the agenda is a
resolution approving the layoff of certain administrative assistant employees. Director Herman. Uh, Chair White, members of the board, um before you you will see the um one resolution um for approval of a layoff of a administrative assistant. We did
reduce 2.5 FTE. We also reduced um multiple positions by a set of days. All of those individuals were given the opportunity um via the collective bargaining agreement um for their layoff provisions which included bumping provisions. Um fortunately we we had a
situation where the vast majority had an option to go into a vacancy or they chose to stay in the role where their days were reduced. Um and one individual that chose right of refusal to um instead of bumping into position to go on layoff. So um this is the only um
impacted individual um all others have either remained in their position or taken a vacancy. All right. Thank you. At this time the chair will entertain a motion to accept the resolution. So made by director France, second by director Johnson. Whereas as a result
of fi financial limitations, the district needs to reduce positions and expenditures in various areas served by the district. Whereas article 9 of the 2024 through 26 collective bargaining agreement between the district and the
Pry Lake Savage Federation of Administrative Assistance contains seniority and bumping provisions in the events of layoffs. And whereas the administration notified the affected employees and the bumping process took place before May 1st, 2025.
Now therefore, be it resolved by the school board of ISD 719 Prior Lake Savage as follows. That the layoff of the following administrative assistance is approved effective July 1st, 20125. Brook Whan.5 FTE Laker online
administrative assistant. We have a motion and a second on the table. If there is no discussion, this requires a roll call vote. Director Olstead. I, Director Johnson, I. Director
Atinson, I. Vice Chair Bullan, I. Director France, I. And Director Mason, I. And I, that carries 70. All right, we have reached the end of the business portion of the study session. Yep. Uh, anybody wouldn't mind,
we will take about a 5m minute reset when we come back here at 7:40. Thank you. Part: 2
Okay, we will uh move into the study session portion of the agenda. Uh there are no speakers for the public forum. So we will move on to the purpose and agenda. Dr. Thomas. Thank you, Chair White, board of directors. Uh tonight,
uh as all study sessions, we'll dive deep into a couple of key areas. Uh we'll start off with um several proclamations that we'll read um with the board to recognize some of our employee groups. uh do a budget and staffing update and within that budget
conversation um have conversation around um authorization thresholds with regards to purchase and leases etc. um board, you all will engage in conversations around the development of an ad hoc uh negotiations committee um
and continue discussion to get clarity around the curriculum audit and uh the 200 series um for uh the board is our uh work session agenda. All right. Thank you. We'll start with
the proclamations. We do have four and I appreciate the administration's attempt to truncate them just a little bit. So, we will continue with reading tonight. So, the first proclamation is the uh celebration of Child Nutrition Staff Appreciation Week, National School Lunch
Hero Day. If Director Johnson would read that proclamation, Child Nutrition Staff Appreciation Week, National School Lunch Hero Day, April 28th through May 2nd, 2025. Prior Lake Savage Area Schools recognizes April
28th through May 2nd, 2025 as Child Nutrition Staff Appreciation Week. Our child nut nutrition staff are committed to supporting our our children by providing nutritious scratchcooked meals to more than 8,600 students. This week,
we celebrate our thanks and gratitude for these essential individuals. Whereas the school nutrition association declares May 2nd, 2025 as school lunch hero day to highlight the difference child nutrition staff make for every
child who comes through the cafeteria. Whereas Prior Lake Savage Area Schools child nutrition staff serve approximately 1.2 million meals every year, averaging 6,000 meals each school day. Whereas child nutrition staff are
vital employees dedicated to preparing and distributing healthy and delicious meals directly to our students all while providing a warm and welcoming environment. Therefore, let it be resolved the board of education hereby extends its appreciation to all Prior
Lake Savage Area Schools child nutrition staff for supporting the nutritional needs and success for our students and declares April 28th through May 2nd, 2025 to be child nutrition staff appreciation week in Prior Lake Savage
area schools. Director Malone. Yes, thank you so much for that. Director Johnson, our child nutrition staff truly are the heart of our schools, nourishing students, not only with the nutritious meals that they serve, but also those caring connections. We just love the vantage
points that we have because we get to see almost every student every day. Even though it may just be for a little bit, we get to see them grow sometimes for 12 or 13 years of their lives and go through different um likes and dislikes and it's a really personal connection that we we really um value and love. um
child nutrition staff. Their work ensures that students are wellfed and ready to learn, making a difference way beyond the cafeteria. So, just really proud of my team and thank you for recognizing them tonight. All right. Thank you. Thank you. The next proclamation is National School
Nurse Day. If Director Atinson would read the proclamation. Yes. Thank you. National school school nurse appreciation week is May 5th through the 9th of 2025. Whereas students are our future and investing in their health today builds a stronger tomorrow. And
whereas families deserve to know their children are safe and cared for at school. And whereas students face increasingly complex health needs requiring skilled support during the school day. And whereas school nurses have supported student health, safety,
and academic success for over 120 years. and whereas they play a vital role in addressing both physical and mental health needs, coordinating care, and connecting families, schools, and health care providers. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Prior Lake Savage Area
Schools proudly recognizes Wednesday, May 7th, 2025 as school nurse day. We celebrate the dedication of our health services staff and thank them for their ongoing commitment to student well-being today and every day.
Thank you for recognizing this team. Um Kate Kyle, our health services coordinator, and along with um with her team of nurses at every building. Um see a multitude of kids each um each year each day. So I know last year I told you how many um office visits we have. It's
805 right now is our average office visits um across the district per day to our health offices. So they definitely fill um a vital role and need within our buildings. And um on behalf of Kate and myself, we want to say thank you for recognizing that group and thank you to them. Thank you. And so you can stay
right at the I'll skip down to D so you can stay there and if Director Mason would read the proclamation um regarding National Speech and Language Pathologist Appreciation Month. Yes. Uh National Speech and Language Pathologist Appreciation Month May 2025. Prior
League Savage Area Schools recognizes May as speech and language pathologist appreciation month, honoring the vital work of these dedicated professionals. Whereas May is nationally celebrated as better speech and hearing month with May 18th, 2025 designated as speech language
pathologist day. Whereas speech language pathologist and teachers of the deaf heart hearing provide essential support to students with speech, language, and hearing needs. Whereas the key members of our student support teams and valued partners to families and educators. Now
therefore, be it resolved that the board of education expresses deep appreciation for the contributions of our speech and language pathologists and proudly proclaims May 2025 in their honor. Thank you again. um speech pathology um or speech pathologists
across the district. Sometimes I go invisible and unrecognized, but we have 700 students who receive some form of speech services in our district. So um a shout out to them. We have 17 um speech pathologists that provide those services. And then also a shout out to our deaf heart of hearing since May is
um more than just speech pathologist. It's it's um what did they call it in there? Now I can't don't have it in front of me. But anyway, it's also a shout out to their deaf heart of hearing teachers and we have a 1.0 0 equivalent but two deaf heart of hearing teachers that work in our district and provide those services as well. So thank you to
them and thank you for recognizing that crew as well. Thank you. And our last proclamation uh is teacher appreciation week. Vice Chair Bullan, would you read that proclamation? Yes. Uh Prior Lake Savage Area Schools
proudly recognizes May 5th through 9th, 2025 as National Teacher Appreciation Week. Our teachers are vital to student success and this week we honor their dedication and lasting impact. Whereas May 6, 2025 is National Teacher
Appreciation Day. Whereas teachers inspire, guide, and empower students every day. Whereas they serve as mentors, motivators, and role models. Whereas their influence lasts a lifetime and strengthens our democracy.
Therefore, the board of education expresses its deep gratitude to all Prior Lake Savage Area Schools teachers and officially declares May 5th through 9th, 2025 as teacher appreciation week. Thank you, Vice Chair Bolan, and uh on
behalf of all the administration and and folks throughout the district, I can't thank our teachers enough for the tireless work that they do every single day in our classrooms. And and I share this every year. um outside of parents, teachers have the greatest effect on learning of students. Um and actually
it's collective efficacy. So not only them in their classrooms, but them together and collaborating do great things on behalf of our students every single day. So just a huge shout out and uh lots of love for our teachers throughout Prior Lake Savage Area Schools. Thank you for what you do. All right. Thank you.
All right, moving down to oversight of operations. Uh we have a 2526 budget and enrollment update. Uh Director Frederickson. Thank you, Chair White. Um you have a document for kindergarten enrollment.
I've updated that for you. Um as you can see, we are as of April 24th, very close to where we were in 2425. Um we're still about 19 kids short of where we would expect to be in October
1st, but um we're back to where we were at this same time last year. So that is good news. Um we'll continue to hope that we'll get a few more over the summer and that will be a very positive
um trend for us. There any questions about the kindergarten enrollment? I just have one question. Of the total 496 enrolled, how many of those are open enrolled versus in district? Do you know off the top of your head? Um I'd have to get that. I don't know off the top of my head how
many kindergarters there were. I was just curious and if there was um you know starting to think about um potential building closures down the road if there's any um thoughts on like do we need to start thinking about limiting that now or
eventually or down the road or um I will get that number to you. Okay. Thank you. And then um the budget update, we have a financial advisory committee meeting tomorrow morning. Um we are going to be
presenting them with um our updated revenue and expense projections and there's some discussion that we're going to have around um some um uses of restricted fund balance. So once we vet that with the
finance advisory committee meeting tomorrow, we will bring that to you on May 5th. All right. Any questions around that? All right. Thank you, Director Frederickson. Thank you. Moving on to a
staffing update. Director Herman. Thank you, Chair White, members of the board. Um Dr. Thomas, just to provide a quick update for you all. May 1st in multiple of our contracts is a big date um for our administrative assistance and our our teachers contract is the date that we are provide their tenative
assignments. So our administrators did provide a tenative assignments to our certified staff on Friday and we are sending out all of our calendars for administrative assistance for next year um by the May 1 deadline as well. Um we will continue to look through our staffing as um enrollments come in and
we're making adjustments in in all of our other contracts. they all just have a little bit slightly different time frames than than those two do. So, just wanted to give a quick update that we are still moving forward with all of our um staffing assignments for the upcoming school year. Any questions or
comments? All right. Thank you. All right. Moving down to a uh few of the requested um study session topics. I believe this one goes back all the way to January where uh um it was requested
that the board discuss um potentially altering the the $25,000 um number for um what's brought to the board for um any any amount exceeding for purchases.
So uh I can't remember director did you yes want this brought forward? or do you have any opening comments as to what maybe you want to talk about? Um, no. I think it was just looking at um sort of based on what we learned last year about our
budget process and perhaps where we fell fell short. Um, do we need to adjust this dollar amount whether up or down or whatever it might be on the purchase orders that exceed $25,000? And I think also just
like looking back past this year like where is the consist there's I I'm seeing some inconsistencies about what is brought forth. Um sometimes we see the teachers on call sometimes we don't. Um so just really understanding from a board standpoint what is the expectation
of what we will see on this purchase orders over $25,000 and then going back to the original request back in January. is this the correct dollar amount in order to allow us to be able to have transparency to these very large purchases um so that we can have some
visibility of I don't know trying to stay on budget or try to hit our budget requirements. So and I was my anybody else before I say anything um and I'm just wondering if for a district our size if that is maybe I'd
like administration's input on this. Does that seem low, high, about where it should be? Could this be a a tiered kind of approach where up to a certain dollar amount somebody has authority? If it goes, you know, to another dollar amount, then it would require Dr.
Thomas's. Okay. Um, I'm just spitballing here and and wondering what your your thoughts on that might be, either Michael or Tammy. Sure. Uh, Chair White, board of directors. Um I I would say I understand and can appreciate the inquiry for the uh authorization um
limits. I I would uh say that there there are a lot of purchases made on a weekly monthly basis and um anything below 25,000 I honestly I would get concerned with our ability um to meet
frequently enough to get a turnaround time to pay these bills on on on time because there's tons that come through. Um and so I'm I'm I hear kind of two things, Director Atinson. um uh the threshold conversation versus uh letting
like what's showing up consistently on on the ledger or whatever. Um and and I don't know if they're mutually exclusive to you or if they are somehow imshed. Um because in I think there have been some times where questions as to why
something didn't show up on on the uh $25,000 and over. one, there were two different purchase orders, like distinctly separate purchase orders. Um, even though it was with a same larger company, they were for different services. And then one, there was an
oversight on our end that we owned and we rectified that the next board meeting. Um, I don't think we have a pattern of not having the items that are 25,000 and up on that ledger. Um and where like I said where we have we we've taken care of that and remedied that to
ensure that there's a check uh better check internal check system dropping it below 25 um I will say this is fairly low um just generally speaking with public entities of our size um in scope uh that's a very low dollar threshold um
I think uh and then if you look at other um aspects like our capital um $25,000 will go out the door in capital quicker than we can bat our eyes. And so I would say for some of our capital projects um
to again I've seen capital uh uh thresholds much higher. So to your point, Chair White, um if if you were tiering something like this for for me, I would see it as tiering for academics and tiering for operations or capital. um because capital has larger bigger
contracts. $25,000 is, you know, you usually don't touch even replacing doors, you know, in a building or windows or glazing and things of that nature for that price. So, so that's my wondering. Um, uh, Director Frederickson, if there's anything else you want to add to that that I might have missed in terms of Yeah, if I can
just add, um, for the capital projects, a lot of those are on our LTFM, which this board has to approve anyway, so they're already um, kind of on there. There are some um, to Director Atinson, your point of sometimes they're on
there, sometimes they're not. Um, for things like teachers on call, I never used to put them on there because it's just kind of a given and then I got questions on why they weren't on there. So then I started adding them and then I got questions why they were. So I can go
either way. Um, teachers on call, we kind of as we build the budget, there's some bigger items that we always talk about that we don't have control over. teachers on call, utilities, transportation, um some of the insurance, some of those
things we don't have control over and we're just going to have to pay. Um so for those items or I think another one was the lease on minaps. Um that one once the contract gets approved then we're going to get monthly bills. Um
phone bills are the same way. So, um I I can certainly go either way that this board prefers to have everything on there that's over 25,000. We can certainly add it. Um if you want to exclude those things that like are going to be monthly invoices
um that are probably going to be over 25,000 every month, then I can exclude them. So, but I just um haven't gotten a consistent message from this board on which way you wanted to go. C can I just add um sorry uh Treasurer Atinson one one more thing maybe just to add um to
kind of turn it back for um comments similar to this too um some of our products that we buy like supplies we might have an open PO um so we know we're going to be buying paper all year long and we might buy you know $25,000
worth we might buy $10,000 worth we might buy $30,000 but the PO of the you know let's let's just you know for an easy number is it's $100,000 for paper what or whatever that supply might be. Um and we'll add you know purchases
against that PO that's approved by the board already for the entire year. So if that's something that you want to see when the uh the primary PO has already been approved and then everything charged against that PO or do you want
to see just the PO? So I think something like that too would be another point of clarity. um of what the board would and that's kind of what what I'm wondering. I mean, I'm sure we have a lot of POS that are in excess of $25,000 that we may pay over time. And I want to try to
stay away from approving something for $100,000 and maybe making three $33,000 payments and have to have that almost like double looked at. We've already approved it. The fact that our payment might be over that limit, I don't think warrants it being brought separately to
the board. Now, if we have a PO for $100,000 and all of a sudden we find out it's going to be 100 and a quarter. Sure. That's the kind of information I'd like brought brought back to the board, but I'd like to honor the definition of a PO and make sure that once we approve it, it doesn't come back unless we're
going to go over for some reason. And um that's kind of where I'm getting whatever the number is. If it's 25, 3550, um that that's really kind of where I was going with this. Yeah. Yeah. And I think getting a consistent understanding of sometimes we see split POS. So is it
one PO even though you issued two payments, but it's the same invoice number because then often I've seen them where there's two payments of 20 or 20,000 and they're the same invoice number, but there's two checks, you know, T. So between two different
buildings, two different accounts. Yeah. So I guess just that's typical. Yeah. But where is the consistency there? And honestly, all it does is really add transparency for our community and for our board when we're putting these purchase orders above 25,000 on a register, right? And it's happening
before they get they actually get paid. That's the other thing. It has to happen before they get paid. So then I wonder that's that's the see the thing is is that by just going through the fin expense transactions, look for anything over 25,000. Not all of them are POS. Obviously our utility bills go over
that. So, um, you know, the the idea behind that was for the concept that we do bidding, approval, all that kind of stuff. Um, most districts don't have that low. I know the state doesn't require that as I had already mentioned
um in a previous uh conversation. So, um, and they don't do that for several reasons. One, the cost of the process of approval, putting things out to bid or whatever. um actually causes a negative result on the actual efficiency and cost
of the overall project. So, um, I would actually be in favor of actually going back to the original definition of what a real firsttime purchase order is, not a recurring one, not a recurring payment, and actually raise it to 50,000 where actually the state and most other
state uh, funded uh, taxpayer is because I think that's going to be a little bit more indicative of um, where larger spend is, but not have it be I mean, our bus bill is over that. So that would not
be a separate PO item and also the POS are going to be by individual EUAR's account grouping code, right? So if you had a PO for let's say Glendale and another one for Hamilton Ridge, those would be two separate POS because they
go against two separate accounts. Um so and that's you know and if we want to look at the aggregate that would be a board decision. If we don't, we look at it the other way around. But again, per what Dr. Thomas just said, our annual
printer is way above that. Uh just for the printing services, uh not even including the paper. So, um we need to figure out where we want to prioritize our our time. But as far as transparency, everything's in the transaction report anyways. And a lot of
these things by the time they're put on that separate group, have already been paid, services already been received. So, it's not like the board is actually making a decision on them either when they're showing up in the consent agenda. Um, can I get clarification? I thought the whole point of this project
or this report was that they go on there before they are paid. Correct. Correct. Correct. So, that's not correct. Um, director France. So, no, it actually it is because the problem is is that people have asked for things to be pulled that are not in the original definition. And
that is where we've kind of gone above and that's where I'm getting at. I think we need to concentrate on that on making sure we take action once on a PO, right? And if it happens to be well above whatever threshold we decide we want to land at, that it doesn't come back when
portions of it are paid. That's kind of what I'm getting at. And um I mean, I'd have no problem raising it. I don't know what the would that require board action to officially raise that or if we if we decide to go that direction or is there a thumbs up we can give or Well, the
thing is is that the definition of it has changed. So like when we did the paid the insurance and everyone pays everybody does personal and business in increments, right? Every six months or every so many months etc. that got pulled back several times uh because of
the confusion of we approved the original PO for it, but then the numbers in the actual transaction report got larger. So, but that wasn't the intent of the 25,000 PO threshold. We've actually now started going beyond what
the original um threshold was um and including other things in there. Um, so like the the speaker uh insurance bill we pulled that got pulled out several times because it was confusing. We already approved the PO but then an amount in the transaction for the second
half of that showed up and they wanted that pulled out too. So that's what I'm getting at. Yeah. So the original So we have the intent which was already low to begin with of 25,000 for the aggregated one or above and then we started pulling a lot more
into it. So what we probably need to do if we want to keep with that threshold is actually create a more discreet definition particularly for the public in policy of what that actually entails or take that 25,000 and raise it to be
more of the um standard with other uh districts, cities, councils, anything that uses taxpayer money. Director France, there are a lot of districts that are sized that have this dollar amount. Please don't. I mean there I've done my homework on this and there are districts that our dollar amount is on par. So I think the convers that's why
the conversation is here. So would there be any desire to to to raise it with that understanding that we are going to do our due diligence to try to only approve POS once and then um I mean in all fairness, Director White, we have
not done a great job of hitting our budget. In fact, our district has not hit our budget. I can't even tell you when we've hit our budget. And so that's kind of the main reason this came to the board table is like do we need more oversight on this um so that we can bring a balanced budget and hit a
balanced budget for our community. I think if we were a district who was cons consist consistently if our expenses were meeting or you know um on par with our revenue and we didn't have a a situation where we had to go consistently ask to dip into fund
balance I don't think that we'd be having this conversation. So, I do not support raising it. I think defining it is really important, but I do not surprise until we can get our budget um our budget balanced. I do not support raising it. I'd like to actually challenge what is the relationship of
the $25,000 limit for the or above for a PO approval and the increase in transportation and sped costs that we experienced last year. Well, I don't I don't believe there was a relationship between the board approving one thing or the other. We approved the transportation contract and we had some
surprise expenses that were explained and we also had sped costs that we are completely out of control with which were then balanced in credits uh uh with the with the balance sheet. So um extra revenue coming in not as much but those
were out of our control for the most part and we are trying to bring what we can in the transportation pack. So, I'm not seeing the nexus between the PO limit and the the budget. Yeah, I I did give the board a reconciliation of the
differences for the revenue and expenses. We did get additional revenue to offset some of those additional expenses. We did still dip into fund balance and as I explained in the reconciliation um we had gone over on our transportation for all of the reasons we
talked about. We had additional special ed expenses for all of the reasons we talked about. Um so um there certainly are going to be expenses that come up that um we didn't
anticipate. We try to do our best. Uh, and again, this year, as I've said, we're going to be very close to what we budgeted. Um, and hopefully next year we're going to have a accurate budget revenue and expense projection. So, I
want to make sure we kind of stick to what we're I mean, is there any is there any will here to change anything regarding this? If if not, we'll move on and get to the other things of the agenda. This was just an item that was requested to be brought up for discussion. If there will of the board
is to to leave it alone and and um we can that's fine. I just I would just like to understand like the intent of this obviously is to try to identify any maybe unplanned expenses right and have board authority for approval. So you
know is there any written process or procedure around tiered limits on approvals um by the administration as well as you know maybe we write some procedure that any repetitive payments in nature don't need to be included. So
things like transportation and teachers on call like that's pretty typical where it's really just you know we want to identify the non-repetitive maybe things that the outlier. Yes. Exactly. And that's where you know I think what the amount whatever it is um just really
trying to identify as a board like these are not um typical things or maybe outliers of of requests for things that we didn't plan right. So then so maybe if there's like definition of what this is. So, is this
better handled policywise or do we just kind of understand moving forward that um when it comes to this 25,000 we are really are talking about things that are outside of the scope of a budget that
we've approved. Is that am I going too far there or That's the way it used to be. And then I think um and correct me I don't know exactly when but they never used to be listed individually for anything that was just over 25,000. It
was only for those big ticket items which is the typical and of course the state statute um the the threshold is I believe 50,000 to and then it's discretionary and then anything over 175,000. Now, um, so that's that's where
a lot of districts our size are. We've only added this report in the last year. It had never been done before. So, it was came as a request. Um, I can say that um when this board approves um the budget, so departments are going to get
their allocation and it is up to the department to decide how they're going to spend that allocation. So the assumption is when this board approves a budget that the allocations go out um for instance if we give an x amount of say a million dollars to the IT
department it's up to the IT department to manage how they spend that budget and if there is something that's over 25,000 um it they're going to do that. They just need to manage within that budget. I think that that to me is kind of my
concern. So, do the departments have the authority to just decide what they're going to spend the money and how do we ensure or who's approving larger expenditures that are to ensure that they are um aligned with our strategic plan and focused on academics and the
things that that department has to deliver. Right? So are there controls in place by administration to you know after whatever threshold of amount given their budget that you know you're ensuring they're spending it on the right thing in that scenario right you
have a million dollars in it they something comes up and they have to spend 400 grand is that need does that just happen or or do they come to you and say listen so yeah no no so when when we have um just kind of a real
case scenario we We are working through the transition of getting rid of very old and very insecure desktops right now. Okay. And we're going to have to procure um additional devices to take
the place of those. Um Marcus and his team is not doing that in isolation. We have had a variety of senior leadership meetings talking about various scenarios that will one will eventually be coming to the board you know for a recommendation because it's a sizable purchase. Um so but then you know there
are times where Martha's going to go out and buy you know a dozen reams of paper. That's not something that we're going to come back to the board with. And so there's there's you know we we have an established background of obviousness of practice in in every organization I've
been in um to to this point if every department gets allocated you know their their resources and where we have found certain departments uh based upon some environmental or external factors are challenged to do that. That's where
we've had public conversations with the board to say we're going to be over budget with utilities or gas prices or whatever it might be. Um, and this is what we had fixed. And we do try to move resources around to balance. This is
what we're doing right now to bring, you know, this year is uh down to a close to where we might have surplus to offset anything that might have been an overage. Um, but that's the nimleness of budgeting. This is I mean as a governing
body you approve an aggregate budget and um outside of the aggregate if if money comes to the board and it's above that budget there's it's never been done in secrecy. It's never been done without sharing here's the reasons here's what's
contributing to it and here's our request you know like we don't have that authority to do that. Um we do have authority on a daily to can I there's with regards to like the example we are because we're using taxpayer funded dollars tax monies um there is a
requirement too if it's really is a 400,000 we have to go to bid yeah they have to go out for an RFP but let's just say it's a um $40,000 um security patch you know that uh Marcus
and again I'm probably out of my lead you can correct me if wrong, but a security patch for all of our iPads in in the district. Okay. That's not something that um if it's within his budget, that's not something he's coming to the board, correct? Every single two
weeks to say, "Can I spend this? Can I spend this?" Like I said, you'd be in board meetings every week, multiple times a week to keep up with the pace of purchases that are happening all throughout the school year. And so that's why I was trying to get clarity
on the issue here. So I don't know I I I appreciate the the clarity of making sure that folks understand how money is being spent. I I don't uh question that at all. I don't see the connection to the threshold. Um I think those are two
different issues. So, so that's why I wanted to just better understand today in this discussion because I think um we will always want to make sure how we're spending our money um is done so you know with integrity um it's public
resources again even with fund balance we've never used anything that this board hasn't approved can I'm sorry Dr. Thomas, when I'm reading the description here, it's it's interesting because it says the
description under what we're talking about. This is the verbatim of what was said that during the board meeting. Oh, okay. That's all. Because it just says in here, it says provided that any transaction in an amount exceeding um the minimum amount for which bids are required. Yeah, I think Martha, correct
me if I'm wrong. You were just paraphrasing what was said from that January board meeting in terms of I thought that was the same. Well, it's what's written into the January board meeting. Correct. So the question is is so is it just for what bid which bids are required because that would make
sense if we're going out and we're bidding something and it's over $25,000. It would make sense that that would then come to the board for review and approval if we're doing not just every single right if we're doing a bidding process for something. So then it kind of makes sense the way it is. Maybe just the way we're doing it on the back side
is not making sense. You know statute,000. Yeah. Anything over 20 125,000 we're required to do an RFP. Anything the actually the CFR the code
of federal regulations number 200 um states that the recipient may self-certify a threshold up to $50,000 on an annual basis and maintain documentation to be available. Um they
also require anything um over 50,000 to have two quotes which we also um follow up with all of the departments to make sure that if they're putting in a purchase order that they do in fact have two quotes. Um and we follow up on that
quite frequently this year. That's federal. Yeah. So state is a little different. states states actually the state of Minnesota for our tax levy funding because I looked it up today um because I have a my company multiple MSAs with the states so they repeat it
on every single one they're like that thick um that it's 50,000 and and they will except for a minute they literally come back and say if you want to go out for a bid or whatever on anything less than 50,000 it's not even costefficient. So yeah. So then where do we land here?
what's what's the comfort level of the board um to uh increase that to that 50,000 with the understanding that if I'm hearing you guys right that with those purchases over that that requires an RFP that we
would then be made privy to or have to vote on. We have to vote on. Yeah. Would that kind of meet in the middle or or you know what I'm saying? I mean, honestly, if we were hitting our budget, I'd be fine moving it to that, and I think we could work towards that, but we're not, in my opinion, we're not
there. And I think that the way I read this, keeping it just to the the bids that are required versus just putting every single like the bus stuff, all the recurring stuff, we don't need to be have on there. The teachers on call, we don't need to have on there because those are reoccurring costs. I think it's the one-offs. And I if I think
about back to some of the one-offs that have been on here where we've actually as a board there's been scenarios where we haven't approved them and we haven't moved forward with I I think of one scenario um that I remember. So I would I think now that I understand what the
intent of this is. I think the intention of it being a bid and it being like not the everyday charges and keeping it at $25,000 is where I'm comfortable at. Does anybody have a problem with that? All right. Can I just That's not
reoccurring POS and that's PO by account, right? Just to make sure we're clear because I don't Right. Okay. All right. Do we need to update the language in here eventually? Maybe. But I think Yeah. So, the annual or meeting will
just reflect. Um, Chair White, uh, board, may maybe I just want to make sure we walk away with, uh, shared understanding of the conditions of satisfaction. So, here's here's what I'm going to offer. Um, I I we I will work
with Tammy to kind of write up this discussion on where we've landed, more like a procedural kind of uh, language. Um that way um I can share it back and verify does does this capture it so that
we can then carry that into the org language and then replace that moving forward. Sounds good. Okay, that sounds good. All right, y All right. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is discussion surrounding uh whether or not the the
board is is interested in moving forward with developing an ad hoc committee uh for purposes of the upcoming uh certified negotiations. Um I've spoken with most of you I think at least briefly about this and just
wondering what the appetite is uh um for this possibility moving forward uh for this negotiation. um cycle. Um kind of where I'm I'm envisioning this. If if there is an appetite for this, if there's an appetite for this,
um I would go ahead and appoint two or three members that would take this on um between now and next Monday, the 5th. Uh take those those three members, maybe
Tammy and and Dr. Thomas and and and Director Herman as well kind of set the ground rules. How are we going to be involved? What aren't we going to do? What are we going to do? And lay that out um very specifically so that uh we
know exactly what the board's role would be and would not be and then bring that back on the 5th to say this what we came up with sound good and and go from there. So that's kind of what I'm So step one is is there an appetite to uh move forward with with developing this
committee for this negotiation cycle. Can I ask a question? Yes, you may. Um and this is a question to administration as as well as the bargaining units. Um honestly um would we get in the way I guess is
the way I would like to put it. I know that um Vice Chair Bullan and I were privileged to sit through one of these last year. It was quite impressive, but also the the ground rules are pretty clear and plus we are not qualified
contract negotiators. Um does it help? Does it hurt? Does it expedite the situation? Does it make it worse? I mean what what are your thoughts on this? I know that's a loaded question, but
it's got to be asked, I feel. So, Director France, members of the board, I think there's pros and cons to everything. Um, I think in the past when we've had negotiation um subcommittees that we were able to um share regular updates with, bounce ideas off with um
throughout the course of time before bringing to a close session. It helped us inform what would be helpful to bring to close session um and when to come to close session. extra set of um you know thought partners around that um and
keeping them updated on a more regular basis. It does add additional step to negotiations um for sure. I think the main piece of it that that has some potential roadblocks or concerns um in my opinion is that everybody involved um
on all sides of the table and throughout the committee know community sorry know that that that committee cannot change the parameters of negotiations and I think sometimes that's very difficult um when there are board representatives
present or even if they're not even present but there's a subcommittee of them that a pressure and or assumption is made that that committee can make those changes and they cannot. So I think as long as that's very clear um that helps with it but that that
potential that individuals may feel like if that committee does come to the table um or they're present or they're available during negotiations that they can even change any of the parameters um would still be present and that would be a concern of mine that we'd have to ne
uh navigate through. Um but again I think everything in life comes with pros and cons. So that would just be some things that I would um ask the board to take into consideration. Well, that was my question exactly since we don't obviously we can't if if you know in the
positions that we had before we were observing more or less and um during the negotiations and currently we can't speak for the board that only happens in a quorum um and it was you know fun to
watch uh in a weird sort of way um and um just wondering Um and and also another another guide rail would be when is it at every step? I mean and I
would be looking to you all as well as the bargain unit to kind of give their feedback on comfort level use, you know, whatever. And also knowing a lot of these are going to be somewhat confidential. It's not like we can just go off and give our opinion and talk to
other board members and stuff. it would only have to occur during a close session, etc. So, um, again, like the pros and cons. Um, that's that's where that's where my opinion sits. I don't want to be a road I wouldn't want the board to be a roadblock in any of this.
Director Fans, members of the board, um, I don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the union um, on what their thoughts are around that. Um, I am happy to reach out to their lead negotiators to start that conversation. We were supposed to meet today for our opening session um but decided to to cancel
because of the the threatening uh weather, but I can reach out to them um and get that feedback from them um because I don't want to speak on on behalf of them. Vice Chair, you had a comment. Um yeah, I'm curious.
Okay, let me see how if I can. When I think about I'm open for the will of the board. If the board wants to have an ad hoc negotiation committee, I'm open. I'm open to that. When I think about what my experience was with
director France last year, it was asked by the union that there was board representation and we did have the privilege of sitting with the negoti the district team. Um it was a privilege to
sit through that. Um we didn't we we didn't um participate in any portion up until the very end when we were all together when there was a agreement made wasn't
that was that correct we only yeah we only basically said thank you right yeah so um again so I am open to the will of the board if the If the will of the board is that we have an ad hoc committee for
negotiations and I would also like to understand to piggyback on what you said director France is um it was asked by the union leadership for that and when we were there we we it we weren't
really invited to participate if and and I know we can't participate So, excuse me for using wrong language. Um, but I want I want to say that um the ad hoc committee between the if that is where
what the board decides the the board involvement along with the district involvement along with the union involvement. It is a collaboration to come to an agreement. Uh I am I I'm just want to uh encourage that we have that
set from the beginning that it's not where it's um any kind of us and them and we're all working together to come to an agreement and I want there to be I want to understand from the beginning
like is this something that the union is requesting? uh it seems to uh be it's the the union bargaining with the district, right? And so adding in the board ad hoc committee
um I just want the I want to respect the time of the board uh the time because it's all so fluctuating. How do you set that? So, that being said, again, my my desire is
obviously to do what the will of the board wants as far as an ad hoc committee, but I do appreciate the questions that you ask. Does this hurt? And I and I appreciate also you saying, Director Herman, that there's pros and cons to everything, and we don't want to
hinder us coming to agreement. We want to help it. Right. Vice Chair France. Um I I do again I don't want to speak on behalf of the union and we're happy to to get their feedback. Um and I do I do just want to
say I think from the past um I think that was a little bit unique because that came in at the very end when we were in mediation different than starting from the beginning. That's kind of what I was going to add too. And so in the past when we have at least here
from my limited experience here when we've had a negotiations committee um it had been from the get-go and they were provided regular updates and then it was and then the the bigger updates and any potential conversations about need for maybe changes or anything like that that
came to close session from there. Um, I think one thing that we have heard in the past from the union that may be helpful moving forward, I don't know if this is how they currently feel, is just the the contract is between the union and the board. Um, we are the
representatives of the board at the table and um, I think sometimes there's that desire to take uh or to have that ability to talk directly to a representation of the board. um so that
there's not a telephone maybe to situation. Um and then sometimes that's not the desire. So again, I would just I would just ask for an opportunity for us to hear directly from them. So we're not speaking on their behalf. Um but we can
always work with a negotiations committee as we've done in the past. And um again, there's pros and cons to all of it. Director Johnson. Um, Director Herman, don't feel if you don't know the answer, so please don't.
Right. Um, I I got to sit through the the MSBA negotiations training um, a month or maybe it was longer than that. Um, and just with with Pelra and doing
doing it that way, uh, or or speaking about that, we could have every one of us on ne the negotiations team and then that would force every single one of our negotiations to be public according to
MSBA or we could have three people and then it would be right and then it could be like any other committee, right? Not not videotaped or anything else. It would ultimately be how we chose to do it. it
it it's it's up to us how how we chose to do it, which I think is the right thing. And I appreciate you saying it is a contract between the union and the board, right, which which is important. So, I'm fully on board um with with
setting up a committee like this. Um now we just to be clear here um making all the so first of all a committee would not be able to really negotiate with the the union any union any bargain unit
because they wouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the board. So it would be more of an observational that's under that's understanding that because we're not in a quorum that yes we do not speak on behalf of the board because we're not in a quorum but there hasn't been a
willingness and I know that last year or last time two years ago two one year ago yeah because that one went on for a while um the there you know we have if you want it to go smoothly you really
want to have both parties involved in understanding how this goes because the the negotiations um um also start off different. They start off with priorities on each side. The board sets the budget, the overall budgetary limit and then they start to
whittle down on each side, you know, what they want to be added or subtracted to the contract and stuff like that. And there isn't always a willingness on both sides on the administration and the and the union side to make that public particularly in
the beginning. So that's why we have to actually um even though it's our decision, we could make things worse by not actually asking right now the administration to go and reach out to the bargaining units and get their
desire to uh because the purpose of this is to actually build those bridges, not burn them down literally. And so that's that's why I want to be sensitive about this. So, Director Olstead, you had your hand up.
Yes. Um, I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. Um, I remember last year or last cycle, I guess I should say, last year that like as you said, Director Herman, this
our the board members attendance during mediation was a request from the union at the time. Correct. was by their request. Okay. So, I think the what I'm struggling with um and a couple of points that have been
made already and I I can't speak for anybody's day job of course, but I know I'm not a professional negotiator when it comes to this. Um, I realized that we wouldn't be actively, at least we'd have
to determine this, actively negotiating and it would be more of an observation kind of feel um or role. Um, to your point, uh, Director Herman, I would like to hear from the union to
see if the union has an appetite for this. Um, I think generally speaking it might be same leadership, but I'm not sure on that. Um, so I I would like to hear from this. Um, and what does the word committee mean? Does this mean just
board members or others? So I think we need to flush that out. Um, who makes the call? How are these folks chosen? Um, or appointed or whatever word you want to use. Um, would this be for all contracts or just
pla? Um, it this feels rushed to me. Um, at least right now. I'm not saying I'm opposed or for it necessarily, but it just right now feels rushed. And I I feel like we'd want something in writing
to really hammer out a what the unions or unions multiple unions appetite would be. I know at last year at this time there was an appetite for it. Doesn't necessarily mean there is now. Um I think it kind of changes the
the feel in the room sometimes. I remember Dr. Thomas you saying last year to I hope I'm not getting into um anything closed. Um changing the the changing the room, you know, or the feel
of the room depending on who's in it. and you certainly wouldn't want to um um jeopardize that either. So, I feel like this needs a little bit more discussion and maybe some flushing out and something in writing so that
everybody's kind of, you know, will the board in writing, but making a decision tonight for next week feels a bit rushed to me. Director Mason. Yeah. Um, I was just going to say I um had the pleasure of attending the
Southwest Metro meeting and had a closed session on labor negotiations. Um, it was enlightening and I would highly recommend that we do that as a board um to discuss just overall strategy and how we want to approach labor negotiations.
Um, I think that happens next week. That happens. Yes. So I think does it make more sense in that session? and we can discuss make the decision pros and cons. We'll have some time to maybe get some feedback from the union and then re readress this at the close meeting uh
next Monday. Does that make sense? Oh, next. Okay, that's what you're talking about. Maybe may extend the conversation. Director. Yeah. Can I add some context? Um what when we talk about negotiations ad hoc committee, this is very common. It's very common with other districts. It's very common to have the
three board members working with administration. Um, and really what it does is it brings together, like you said, a very collaborative appro approach between the union and the board. And the the board is not there to negotiate. They're there to have a
presence and really to be able to bring back the message to the full board just like in any other committee that we do. um we as board members aren't out there making decisions or dictating what's being said in these other committees.
We're there more to um attend and report back to the full board. And so it's very common and where I know that boards have done this, it works very well. So I fully support it. And um yeah, and I would say two to three. And um as far as
how many contracts, I think we could start with the one, the big contract, and see how it goes. I mean what we've done in the past there's been some big hiccups and I think we as a board just want to do better and see how we can create a more collab collaborative relationship with the union throughout this process so that it it isn't as
rocky as last time. Or would it be? Oh, sorry. Anybody? Just to kind of finish that like I think in that closed session determining how many members we want, you know, if everyone can think about before then and maybe come prepared and then um you know there is training out there if we want
those people to attend training. We chew on it for a week or Yeah, we can't do that in a closed session just so you know legally. Um we can't make those decisions in the closed session. Um but we can come up with a way to do it and um again we've gone backward and
forwards historically in this district as you are well aware. Yeah. Um um there's just the guard rails need to be up. Um especially with people haven't been involved in negotiations before that sort of thing. So we got to be
careful. Um and again I would very much appreciate the feedback from the bargaining units. um on this because I know that it went the other way because of other things and last time was a unique circumstance understood because
of the bianium the funding the confusion with the funding and a lot of other things so last year was not normal so if we ultimately made the decision let's say on May 19th is that would that be a go
ahead I'm sorry just can someone explain why we can't make that decision because I because I don't think we We can't take the we can't take any action to to make up a committee with in a close session. Yeah. Um maybe it's not a defined committee anymore. It was how we're
approaching the strategy to negotiate which we will do on Monday. That is in the close session, but we can't as a board make any decisions within a close session. My question is if if we don't if we make the decision on the 19th, will you have really even met in any
substantial way yet? And you can know it's a guess, but um Chair White, we were scheduled to start negotiations today. Um we're hoping to reschedule that next week. Um looking at different schedules um from there, how fast we
negotiate is is slow at the end of the school year. We typically go pretty fast in the summer. Um, but again, I can um I'm hearing it's the will of the board that we get feedback from the union. Um, I can also encourage them to email you directly uh with that feedback and then
um we should have a better understanding during close session to at least have that conversation. Understand that can't be a vote there potentially for creating a committee. But that that conversation can be at close session to move from there. The we will have that feedback and that not the entire meeting isn't
closed. We do have a Yeah, we can do it outside of the close session. We decide before we go into close session whether or not we're going to do this. So, would it make sense to get that feedback? We can chew on it for a week and then we'll come back at the regular portion of the next meeting and make a decision. I have
a question and this is a procedural question that you may want to call and ask about it. Once we get the feedback and we discuss strategy in the close session which is normally what we do and um the board gives you know direction
can't vote but give direction um based upon that feedback could we come out into another topic area or is that not allowed and I know I I've never seen it done here um in the times that I've witnessed the board meetings before I
got on the board but I don't know what the cadence is after you're saying you would um you know have have the regular uh business meeting. You close for um negotiation strategy session reopen the meeting which we do and then in that
reopening you would have a you would have an agenda topic an an action agenda topic. So I guess what I'm wondering and Martha we can talk about this too. If you think that that might be the case, you may want to put that on the agenda
following the close session so that it's noticed because you wouldn't have time to notice the community. So, I would just say put it on the agenda ahead of time and then you can always pull it or something, but that way it's there. Give the board the flexibility. Yeah. And
again, I've never seen it done, but I don't know if it's not possible. The time frame of how long you're going to be in that session because We all have to come back for let us work through some of that understanding of and I'm I understand what you're saying and I'm just
wondering if we can't just do it at the at the open or the regular part of the meeting ahead of the close session um at least either agree to or not to to have the committee I think you could yeah at the regular I just didn't know Maybe so maybe put it on the agenda um at the
regular part of the meeting. We'll uh tomorrow we'll amend the agenda. All right. A couple director. Okay. I I still think that this is very rushed for next week. Well, it's not it's two weeks actually, isn't it? No,
it's a meeting. That's right. Because we have the spring members of the board request. I I'd like to request that we get something in writing about what we can do. in an open and close meeting before I'm comfortable. Well, if we do it beforehand and we're okay with that,
that's fine. But I was wondering if if we wanted the feedback during the closed meeting and discuss the strategy and then come out. Um either way, I just didn't know what was appropriate and also I don't I personally I don't want to keep anybody here at like 10 11
o'clock at night either. Have them come back in. Right. Yeah. Members of the board, I do to um Director Olstead's um point. I I can't promise when we'll get feedback back either. I want to respect their potential need to meet with their
team to have a bigger conversation, but I will reach out to ask for that connection point and keep chair white um updated as I I hear back from them on any anticipated timelines of when they can get their feedback back to us. Thank you. Question. I'm sorry, director
Johnson. Well, I I mean we are going through open and close meetings this evening as part of our 200 series. I mean I just glanced over it and it doesn't say anything about that we cannot do that. Oh take action at a closed meeting
afterwards. Oh afterwards. Yes. Correct. But I'm again we're trying to be sensitive to everybody having understandable with that. Just understand we can do it. We're just trying to be a little sensitive to people's lives. Yes. Absolutely. All right. So, I guess I would encourage everybody just to kick it around, you know, this for this week and um we will
come back to it on Monday. Chairway, um just because of what uh Director Herman just mentioned in terms of making the offer discussion by the time it comes in, should I hold until Friday just let you know like no later than Friday to
add this agenda? Is okay with that? Okay. All right. And if we again that's be a similar situation if we had it on there and we didn't get the information we can always then we can Okay. All right. All right. Everybody good? All right. Thank you. All right. Uh next on
the agenda is the discussion surrounding uh a curriculum audit. I thought to start this uh because Dr. Thomas has been through a full-fledged uh version of this in another district. If maybe it'd be uh helpful for him to
give us maybe a couple of definitions of what it could mean um depending on on how we uh would move forward with it. Yeah. So, well, I think it would also be helpful to understand what the ask is or
what the you know, the the outcome. Um but generally speaking when you go through a curriculum audit um it's a very comprehensive uh process that takes um a good four or five months. Um there's big companies that do this very
similar to what um uh director Frederickson goes through on the on the financial side. It's a it's a curricular dive just like we would do in an audit a financial audit. um and they can cost upwards of 50 $60,000 depending on the
scope of the project and you know what you're looking size of of all your curriculum instruction etc. Um so that's that's a very traditional audit objective third-party person coming in checking for um uh materials aligned to
state standards reviewing lesson plans looking at unit assessments you know the whole barrage of of what's in your CNI um division and then based upon that generating a report to say here's where you have gaps here's where you have strong alignment here's where we would
recommend that you you know augment an adoption cycle or it's good, you know, all of that. Okay, so that's that. Um, you have uh you could also do a curriculum review. Um, I shared with
Chair White um a review cycle that I have put together. Um, and it's more of a higher flyover of checking for curriculum aligned state standards um, and resources. So, you're basically
cataloging what you have in your CNI division. Um, and that obviously is something that can be managed internally, but again, we're, you know, we're a pretty lean uh district, so how timing and all that, you know, where we
would uh do that. We could certainly discuss that. And then I would just share with the board um and those of you who have been here um through this every time you adopt a curriculum um you essentially go through an audit. So let's just use Redact that was that
that's going to be the next big one in our state um that we're going to have probably statewide comprehensive um ELA curriculum adoptions happening um or realignments etc. So um you know when we have to uh when the readact passes and
standards emerge etc curriculum you know guides what needs to be covered we now now will have to go through and review all of what we've got in our ELA curriculum and look at um the core curriculum as well as are there supplemental materials that we've purchased to fill gaps in the past do
they still align not align and um this is part of what uh Dr. Edwards was alluding to um because this is also something that we would then be taking through teaching and learning to say okay here are the new standards here are some of the resources that we're going
to start considering um get perspective from from you know various committees etc and then come back ultimately to make a recommendation to the board to make a purchase of a comprehensive ELA curriculum. Um, so you're going to build in the curriculum audit, if you will.
Um, I I'll just say curriculum review because an audit is truly a third person entity coming in and doing that. So, um, a review is probably more common that's done and you do them in cycles that naturally occur or you
could kind of do a cataloging on your own if you will, which is something that we started to do with elementary, which I believe we did that two a year ago, two years ago with elementary. And I know our team now is working through the cataloging of our resources and
beginning in various content areas in secondary. And again, just kind of going by subject. So, give us the board a little context of um on the academic side, what does that mean? What does that look like in a variety of different scenarios? And then my ask is, you know, the intent of the
conversation u being brought forward, what's the outcome? Um and then that might help me better understand what the ask of the board is of what you're trying to gain from that. Can I ask a couple clarifying things that you shared
Dr. Thomas, if you could elaborate a little bit on the cataloging, what that actually looks like and then you mentioned CNI division. What is that? Curriculum instruction. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Um so, uh sorry, teaching learning curriculum
instruction. We call it a lot. CIES. Um so uh the the cataloging basically saying for um our geometry course what what textbook are we using? What resources do we have? What materials do
we have? Um that that's the cataloging process I'm talking about. Okay. I just needed a mental picture. Yeah. And I think when I first brought this up, um, this was being done in some other districts. And I think the main driving factor in the back of my mind is we have
a new strategic plan. And the number one pillar, one of our priorities is that students receive rigorous, challenging, and relevant instruction for the their unique learning needs and goals. And so in my mind, um, it's it's a twofold thing. It's making sure that we're going
we're going through okay what is what does our science curriculum look like from elementary to middle to high school. Does it align with standards? Are we before standards? Are we after standards? Because I've heard some things feedback, you know, like we're
behind because standards are going to be emerging new new science standards. Yeah. So that's where I'm as a board member. I'm totally confused on that. Okay. And then um and so you know what are we using? How does it align from all
levels of you know elementary to middle school to high school and then also adding it to our website for transparency for our community because other districts have all their curriculum on their website. And so to me that's what I understand. Um even school boards for academic excellence
they mentioned that John Hopkins I believe it was that they do that that audit that you're referring to. It's about $50,000. You're right. But that's not what I was referring to or even asking for. Audit. I I Sorry about that. That's what I read. So I think it's knowing that we have this we have a new
strategic plan and how do our our resources align with the plan making sure that it's challenging and rigorous and relevant and then adding that trans and does it how does it align with standards and then adding that transparency to our um website for our community is what in my mind what I was
thinking about. Yeah. So I would say um I I would liken that to more of a curriculum review and I think um that is something that we did with our elementary beginning and I think that's been uploaded to the websites uh ele
elementary department or the uh teaching and learning department I believe on the elementary uh page. Do you want to speak a little bit about some of the um we've begun the work of of that some of which has and much of which has not yet um and
so we would through that process that was described um and we are beginning that work in various content areas. Um we certainly have that work in regard to math uh in that we have done a
comprehensive audit if you will or curriculum review to use the terminology and we've adopted um a K8 now uh curriculum again uh we are in that work with our social studies curriculum for
example and we're beginning to identify those resources that are currently uh the the dates and and how long they've been in place. Um so definitely have working documents that
we have not yet uploaded. Um but certainly getting some additional input and direction here uh with what the will of the board is with regard to that is certainly something that we're very much open to.
Yeah. So I I Sorry. Go ahead. No, it was any uh director Jasmine. Um I think your high over flyover example that you that one the review. Yeah. Um I think that
was a a great thing. And then what director Atinson referenced with the strategic plan is is on point. Um exactly what I was thinking when um I read it. And then I understand that adding it everything to the website is
going to be extremely time intensive. All of those types of things. But maybe all of our schools have an open house. But putting all of our curriculum on display should suffice for for the time so that we're not, you know, being budget
friendly, right? And maybe focus on these upcoming sure curriculum. natural the natural cycle, right? That you're attempting to push through, right? So that we have an open and transparent of this is the new things that we're looking at, right? Before they're even
implemented, this is what we're looking at, right? and a simple link, right? So that so that we can begin this process, right, of the community to see it because those aren't things that people are going to be able to see, feel, and touch and that but they're going to be
able to at least start to dig into that process. I think maybe allocating a little bit of time into that part instead of uploading everything. So we can kind of especially with with summer coming up, right? all those types of
things. That might be something that could be able to be planned um with an open house rather than trying to push to get everything uploaded, you know, before the end of the summer. France, you know, um, one of the I know
that co kind of threw things a little bit ary, but one of the things we used to do is like with these curriculum reviews, just put the cadence of the reviews on a timeline on the website so they know that like for the next two years we're going to be doing social
studies. We just got done with math. We've got the read thing going on so people can see it and they know who to contact for questions, too. Um, I think that that may help the community understand that whole cadence
of review that we do no matter what and we've done consistently. We're just not maybe communicating it as well, which tends to maybe have led to the confusion. Um, but you know, every district does this. Um I don't know if
you're know can you know can see what you're going to do three or four years from now but just letting people know that hey this is coming in and obviously the standards are constantly being reviewed and have a certain time limit update um a minimum of once every 10 years they completely overhaul so that
way people can see that we're keeping up with it or at least attempting to. Yeah, I agree. I mean I think it would be super helpful to have some sort of documentation or matrix of you know catalog whatever we want to call it to identify the curriculum being used at
every level and what year it was implemented when the standards are changing or just you know some sort of you know so we can understand as word members like how long have things been out there what you know parents could click on it the link to whatever curriculum we are using um and then also so that we know you know what's upcoming
every year you know okay standards are changing for social studies we need to reook at it next year, whatever that is. Yeah, we we have actually this is good feedback and and I think to Dr. Edward's point. So, we actually have an internal document of our curriculum review cycle
um at and I believe Dr. Zumbush might have actually shared this um once with the board in a work session um at some point. Um if you recall, there's these linear lines that overlap and kind of when we could expect to see results and all that kind of stuff. So we have that
document internally. It's not something that's published, you know, so we can certainly make it more um average public friendly. Yeah. Um and and I think that's the other thing right now. Um, I think I shared some with Chair White the other day, too. And just
a a template that I've put together for how we sequence all of our curriculum with um, dates, publishers, uh, which standards are they hitting because we might have core curriculum, but then we might have two supplemental curriculums because no curriculum is perfect. So, you have to fill gaps. Um, so you'll
have some of those um, additional resources, but are tied directly to the core curriculum. Um, so yeah, we we do have that. Um, and I think uh a review cycle um I think starting with that document I think that Dr. Zumbush
mentioned that might be where we begin. But to a couple of your points, yes, when we do school open houses, it's an opportunity for uh teachers to share um you know, as a third grader coming in, this is what you can expect over the course of the year. Okay? and and I
think that's something that we can build towards for the fall and then kind of make that transition into a digital upload to everything as we work through um I will say our our next opportunity to do this as Dr. Edwards mentioned is
with social studies and ELA. Um, science. Well, well, I don't I'll just say social studies is probably still spinning into. So, so ELA is probably going to be the one I can really say with confidence that will be the next kind of statewide implementation of new
curriculum um because everything's going to change as a result of um when they land that in the legislature. So, um that will be our big focus area. But in the meantime, I think we can work at building out some of these other aspects to have it face forward more.
Um, helps me understand that you're not looking for a very traditional audit because that was no $50,000. And I just think it it kind of it kind of goes back to our strategic plan there. The message was loud and clear from our community that they want to ensure that students are receiving challenging and rigorous
instructions. And if for some reason we're finding that it's not, then it needs we need to come to the board and decide how do we supplement it or whatever. So that's also like as a parent, you know, as we everything especially middle school is on an iPad, right? So we don't have like a book at
home where I could just like page through whatever social studies and kind of see what they're learning the year. Like there's just not it's a different world, right? So as a parent, I think the feedback you hear is like I have no idea what my kids are learning. like to be able to see that or have links to it is super helpful. Sure. Um Chair White,
I I I did want to um mention too in a couple of the curriculum reviews since sitting um in this chair, I know that we did just for the public's knowledge too, we did have the curriculum either what
we were looking at and compare and contrast, we did have it, you know, in the district office so people could come out in the public. We invited folks first. Invited people to come and like to your point, Director Mason, like hold it in your hand, like flip through it and things like that. Not a whole lot
and never came back. Yeah. Right. Yes, I did hear that. Um, not a whole lot of people took advantage of that opportunity. I will say that with the two that um I've known about since sitting in this chair. But on the other side of it, the math night that we held,
you know, very well attended, you know, so I mean it just kind of depends, but we do have usually when we're especially if it's like, okay, we're looking at these two, you know, we put both out in there. Um, and not a whole lot of people
take advantage of that. Yeah. And that's where I would jump in. I appreciate you bringing that up. And I think the comment uh or the perspective and feedback around maybe they're not going to come and see it uh here, but they're going to come and see it potentially at open house or we're going to present it
on the website in a more uh userfriendly way. Uh I think a great point uh director Mason around links. So like if this is the curriculum, I can go uh peruse that particular resource. Um so I think those are all good uh feedback
that help inform uh our next steps on this work. You clear? Yeah. And I think as we get ready, you know, in June, we'll have like an academic um session with the board and I think we'll bring some proposals to the board at that time to
share kind of what we think would be plausible to move forward with um if that if that is okay with the board, it fits timely with the topic. Good. I think that's right. Thank you very much. Appreciate the discussion. Why don't we take uh a quick five again and let
everybody that wants to leave leave and then we'll dive in. Okay. Uh everyone um I want to be respectful of uh people's a couple of board members have an early morning as well as Dr. Thomas uh with a finance committee meeting. So,
I'm going to propose uh that we do our best to try to get through as much as we can by 10 and uh with the goal of trying to get through 20 see if we can get through 203 and um
and go from there. So, let's dive in and do it and see how efficient we can be. So first on the agenda would be uh policy
203 the uh operation op or operation of the school board. Director Johnson if you want to make a maybe an opening comment. Yes. So what we have here is uh policy 203. So we have so for just purposes right we took out the prior
lake current policy 203 and struck it out. And then this is just a normal 203. The only thing that has changed in here is we have put in the latest edition of Robert's rules with that. All right. Any opening
comments, Director France? So, we don't follow Robert's rules revised edition. They're only for boards 12 or greater or parliaments. We follow, and that was in the old one. We follow the Robert's rule for small boards, uh, which is taught by the MSBA. Um, and that's a that's a huge
distinction because there's a lot of things in that Robert's World Revised Edition um that will never apply here. Um, we can't do it. So, you're saying that 12th edition is the revised edition. Is that what you're It is. It's the re It's the Well, usually they go
are are Robert's rules revised, but yeah, the latest edition or any edition. We only follow the MSBA small boards. So would crossing out that red part there suffice or so we can change that to instead of 12th edition we can say
Robert's rules of order latest edition for small boards. Well actually they don't have Robert's rules itself doesn't create a small boards division. you we we use the MSBA which was in the original operating norms um and it was specifically pulled out because of the
issues with well you know you're supposed to do a motion this way or that way or whatever and we don't so we you know when you went through your phase one and phase two you went through the the Robert's rules training uh and you got a PowerPoint presentation probably out of it or a download that you could
have downloaded those are the steps and the motions and stuff like that and they also have something online. Um, and that's what we normally follow. Um, and then a lot of states and different areas have their own version. What the school
MSBA also says is that um, regardless of what happens because we're independent school boards, we have to do certain things by motion, but the rest of it is actually determined by whatever rules we put in there. So, they they also say that in the actual MSBA training. Um,
and it's and it's kind of important to point that out because otherwise people pick up the book and kind of cherrypick stuff out of it and they'll say, "Well, the board didn't follow this or didn't follow that." And obviously we don't pay a hundred and something thousands for a
parliamentarian and we don't do all that either, which is required. So then, so then what should just say Robert's rules of order? Yeah, I do think so because there are a lot of things that we maybe don't do that we should be following in Robert's rules of order and at the end of the day um
there's not much difference between the the big I mean yes there's big difference between the big board and the small board but it's really there's not that much difference and if we follow Robert's rules of order we follow Robert's rules of order I mean that's it's that simple you know and this is this is MSBA's policy that they had the
only thing that was changed was I put in the latest edition of Robert's rules. So we can change so we can keep latest edition or we can just the words latest edition or we could put in 12th edition or Okay. So the actual book is like this
thick. That's why so either we follow MSBA or we say which parts of Robert's rules we're actually going to follow because otherwise you get into and we have had this happen where people go well you didn't do this and this is a motion and you should have done this it
this way and you know it's a big book so if we're going to have guidelines either we use the MSBA or we say which version it is because otherwise you will and we have ended up in this whirling dervish of which one applies, how to apply it.
Should C read how does how does MSBA get filtered into this? Should C not read Robert's rules of order? Should it read MSBA? We actually stated in the last norms that we follow the MSBA rules for small
boards. Can you please point that out because I didn't see that in here anywhere on our old policy. Um, yes, it was a small boards on the policy. What number is it, please? I don't know. It's all crossed out. Hold on. Let me see if I can find it. I think there when you say Robert's rules of order, it's there
is Robert's rules of order has been created since the 1940s or something and it exists. It was British parliamentary. So yeah, 19 whatever I don't know the right names or years, but the point is is it's really helped it it helps to keep
moving meetings running smoothly and it also protects the voice of the minority. to be honest with you, the rules are the rules. And so you cannot cherrypick and say, "Well, we're going to use this part of it and that part of it." And and so you either use it or you don't. And I think that's why we do use it in business meetings and we don't use it in
study sessions. Okay. So that's the other thing that needs to be um in the crossed out version. Okay, let me get to where we are. It's under number five. No, no, no. Sorry. What's
number six? It's 610. Board members shall be conducted according to Minnesota statute where applicable and then by Robert's rules of order for small boards as prescribed by the Minnesota School Board Association using the authority normally vested in
the board chair as described in Robert's rules of order. And so is the um would it be sufficient to take the language of 610 and put that in C?
I'm fine with that. I agree. I mean it pretty much says we're use Robert's rules of order. So I'm fine with that. Okay. So 610 will from PLSAS policy 203. Okay. And the only other
thing I had was um because there is a a distinction between our regular meetings and our study sessions under three uh rules of order should say rules of order for regular schoolboard meetings be as follows. Yes, that was my other comment.
That way we can still kind of Yes. do whatever we want to do with this study sessions. We can be a little more loosey goosey. Yep. We'll add regular. Got And if there's other places that I didn't catch that that where it says rules for schoolwire meetings, if we could insert it, I'll I'll keep looking, but I I
found that one for sure. And I'm think I found another one, but yeah, there was another one that I also Yeah, on page 50 there was another one. Yeah. Three point. So it' be three rules of order and then just insert regular after
uh word four. Got it. We will make that change. Okay. Anything else on 20 I was sorry I was on to 203.1. So anything else on 203? Good. Yep. Now 203.1. I noted that one
change. Is there any discussion on 203.1? Does MSBA really say to raise our hand? No. No. That was my suggestion. And I kind of like I'm not a fan. There is a um
where was it? Where in MSBA they actually have where they stand up. So MSBA's struck language. It says schoolboard members need not rise to gain the recognition of the chair. Right. Um, and so I suggested that in
order to be respectful and that we're not talking over each other as board members, that if we get the attention of the board chair by a hand, he will then direct the meeting to make sure that the the board member is addressed. No, I
like that. Again, regular board meetings for the most part, the conversation is a little more loose um at study sessions. Yeah. and B, C, and D also follow the small business um things and the rules of order on 203.1 as well. So, um it
needs to be anything need to be changed? No, it's the minimum. Um I think that um you know the the older policies were a result of experience and things happening and then having to be defined and and having you know where policies
were confusing or whatever. And then the boards went back and we made things more discreet and we're going to start from scratch again. So, um, that's kind of what this looks like. Was there anything specifically that you would like that's
more prescriptive put back in? Well, I mean, there's there's a lot of things in here that went through years of discussion uh because of circumstances and and all that. And some of those um we had taken ethics, a lot of the stuff
out of ethics and put it into the rules norms because they weren't really the definition of ethics. um which is more or less um you know uh um loosely stated like you know um being
nice, moral, respectful, stuff like that and instead moved more discreet things in here into the norms um because they were really rules. And so then as we had experiences of of
things happening um they became they became more prescriptive over time like the open meeting law um uh you know the rules in there to allow for instance Martha to be able to inform people of
when it's okay uh to like go to things in which there's a quorum and leave it up to her because she has the expertise and know knows what she's signing. us up for versus things that we have to make sure uh we don't have a quorum in because board business will be discussed
that sort of thing and then like um some of the um uh other circumstances under that. So that was put in more prescriptively here to transfer that authority to our pseudo parliamentarian um to help the board make those
decisions. Um, so that was done. Um, and then um and then we made other things like a little bit more uh prescriptive as far as showing up to meetings. So, and I did make a comment in the comments
that I sent back to to everybody about um meeting attendance and quorums uh because we cannot meet here and be on record or whatever if we don't have a quorum. we would literally have to cancel the meeting. And the default language in here did not say that. That
was put back in. But that also requires for public notice that requires adequate notice to the chair uh that you won't make it. And during flu season, believe me or not, that is huge. Um um and
during inclement weather. So um we made it a little bit more prescriptive to say within you know as soon as you know you have to notify the chair that you won't be at a meeting instead of just saying you know we were getting messages at 2 minutes before the meeting going I'm showing up I'm not showing up that sort
of thing. Um and that's not that's not really being respectful not only that to the public that shows up to a study session or to a well I think I think so that's why we got really prescriptive in here. Um, so that came that's the reason
why the norms got so large. Okay. And that's up to you guys. I mean that's up to the will of the board of putting that back in there. I hear I hear what you're saying and I
think if I could understand what letter if there's something you know that we had in our old p kind of similar to what we did just you know bringing back 6.10 10 to to see like if I could
understand, you know, what exactly you're saying for what letter, I'm I can I'm listening and I understand what you're saying, but I'm I'm not I can't grasp what you're suggesting to put back in. Well, so when you guys went through the
original policy, did you look at what you wanted to remove or did you just go to the MSBA template and put that in here? I don't know what your process was. Okay. Yes. So my process was look
through all of MSBA find right have prior leg side by side make sure that we had something right MSB in MSBA that matched right something in in prior league if it didn't we needed to put it
in there yeah other than that if something was similar in MSBA that was sim you know the wording might have been a little bit different But like as long as it matched the intent diligent about making sure what if there was something
that Prior Lake had that MSBA didn't then it was brought over. Um but otherwise it was the uh MSBA model was adopted if it if there was something connected with the M does
that make sense? There was something that connected. We we were going with the MSBA model policy rather than fairly as we stated before MSBA is a template that you fill in particularly because no
statute is going except for the open meeting law is going to do rules and norms that is the board kind of managing itself. So it's so like I said the original one was done over the years
added to because of experiences and how this the boards in previous wanted to operate. Um so if there's things in there that you didn't like or didn't think were appropriate then you take them out or whatever your pol policy
was. But you you as long as the board is remembering that a lot of our policy numbers were created and before MSBA came up with a model policy for something and sometimes we were as you can see in a lot of the other numbers we conflict because they came up with one
to fill a gap and we had already used that for something else and that was procedural, statutory, studentled or whatever. So doing that one- on-one has never really worked and actually the policy committee talked about that quite a bit of why we're off on numbers. So,
but that's you guys whatever you did here. That's that's why I'm asking what was your process when we I'll just say this and please add whatever when we received from the will of the board that we wanted to adopt MSBA model policy specifically if we're
we're on 203 right now. Prior lakes 203 was extremely long and I understand that it is based on years and years of um morphing maybe whatever word you want you know of work put into it.
MSBA's model policy has it split out into um understandable chunks 203 203.1 you know and I think it's uh because it was the will of the board to adopt that
MSBA model policy. I appreciate that for 203 specifically because it allows it's digestible. It's digest. Yeah, it it's in chunks that you can It's or an
organ um better organiz organized organization. Yeah. Thank you. So that's what we did. I get it. Um after being on the board for so long, like whenever something would happen and we'd say we'd
call the MSBA and they'd say, "Well, don't you didn't you write that in your policy?" We'd be like, "No, well, we only gave you a template. You need to do that for yourself and then you need to govern yourself in the 200s." So, that I remember from the very first year that I
was here. So, and I'm not sure, Dan, if you experienced that in your history um of them coming back and say, "Well, it's your policy. We're not going to tell you how to do this. We're going to set the basic guidelines." So, that's why we're
having this conversation. But the little things like the note the board may choose to include the policy a method of calling the role. Um again my feedback was we already have that in our agenda. So we chose to do it by putting in our
agenda items of we do a roll call, right? Um so that's why I put in my notes that just take that whole section out because that's how we decided previously. And by the way, you already had that in there. Um so putting those little notes in there. Um yeah, we
crossed the vote. Yeah. Chair White, um I just have one thing under J. Um it's so 203.1J. It says the order in which names will be called for roll call votes will be determined by the school board and isn't it typically it is the chair. So I would just change that to by the board chair.
Okay. Yeah. Because that's because you're running the meeting, it falls under that. So that's the only change I had regarding this policy. Um, letter G, there was some comments on letter G from multiple board members. And if I can point out uh specifically
with the the phrase any member of the audience. Um I pointed that out. can either um take that out um if everyone is okay with that and director Bullion and I can can work that um if everyone
is okay with that or we can basically work that into the phrase of hey it's going to be the administration. Yeah. However, whatever everyone is okay with. And I I think I would just take the whole sentence out and leave it. members of the public who wish to be heard shall follow school
board procedures because we already recognize administration and another sub part of the policy. I'm I was going to say either either scratch it or somehow we do this through the open forum. Yeah. So either I I don't care which way you want to go. If you want to just leave it
out, we're not going to get rid of the open forum or somehow tie this sentence to it's going to be through the open forum that this recognition is going to take place. We're not just going to be willy-nilly calling on people in the audience during open forum. The last sentence actually take it out and leave it in the open forum and agenda section
because maybe that maybe that we do have an open form and agenda section in the policy. Maybe maybe just scratch G if everybody's comfortable scratch G and add but no no we don't need we don't need to statement elsewhere because I so it's a like if the way I was reading it
was like the school board shall have the authority to I would reward it like recognize administration in the audience regarding a request to be heard but I guess this is specific to the public is which we're talking about right and since we have a policy on open form
maybe that covers it that covers it Okay. Okay. So, we're just going to scratch G. Scratch G. I was trying to understand what they were saying. Change the lettering. Got it. And then to uh Director Fran's earlier point about maybe it's surrounding
letter M. Um you're right. We wouldn't meet. I think this is written like for a night for tonight. Severe weather hits. There's two people here. It basically based on what the little bit of research I did today. you know, the two people
can call the meeting to order and then adjourn, which then would allow us to meet the next day as opposed to posting for 3 days for a special meeting. It's a very unheard of and probably ultra rare occurrence, but
it it is covering something that I suppose could happen, but I've never We would go to statute for that. And that's what I'm wondering if statute covers that. It does. It does. So if it does statute statute does it is it is verbatim from statute. This letter M. So
is the statute is it is referenced. So we can choose to leave it. Well, as long as if it's if it's then I have no problem with I just want to make sure that Here's the thing is the language that so it it's somewhat verbatim from statute. There's other parts of that
statute that then we ran into this I believe Martha um one time where we didn't know if we were going to be able to I I'm not sure if it was increment weather or something else where we said well what do we do if we've got to call the meeting and then I believe we had to call MSBA and ask them you know how much
notice do you need if it's under this circumstance or whatever I can't remember I think maybe it was a snowstorm um three days yeah and that was the question that we had is do can we delay for 3 days because I think there was a deadline of something we're
supposed to vote on. Um and so the statute you actually have to go to the legislative version of the statute where they had to deal with this in the legislature about their timing of voting and that's what we got. Um, so technically though, if a if a public
reads this, it makes it look like we still meet. And technically, I don't believe we can even have a valid motion. Um, according to we can with and again, this is so super rare. This is literally not us cancing a meeting or not
cancelelling. It's more a couple of people showed up. No one else could get there. What do we do? Right? which would then allow this just allows the two members to call the meeting to order, adjourn, and allow us to avoid the three-day meeting. To your point, if
there's something that's this time sensitive, we could meet the next day. Well, and that's where we had that's where it wasn't written in statute, I believe, and they they had to go through a legislative interpretation and blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah, I I would prefer if M actually we
just we have the statutes in here and the statute that this references is in there. Um I I would prefer just to take it out just cuz typically what we would do is put a notice of saying the meeting's canceled and not even do the call and
adjourn. And that's what I believe we were given permission to do if but it didn't occur. And it's it's so incredibly rare that I don't I can go either way. Direct way. It also is really Robert's rules of order because if you had four of us here and one of us got sick and had to leave, then you
still still do need to um adjourn, right? And that's really what this is this is also another another scenario that would allow us to meet start the meeting again the next day as opposed to so it's really but it follows Robert's order. So if we follow Robert's r why do we need it in here? So so is it the will
of the board to cross M out? I I you know what I would prefer to do that because it's kind of confusing. Um and I believe no we did we had a snowstorm one day where on the day of the meeting uh we did cancel in 20 17 or 18. I think we
were all here though and then we left. No we weren't here because I got I was landing on a plane when I got the text message an hour before the meeting saying don't show up. I if if statute covers this Yeah. and it's never going to happen anyway. We can probably cross
it out. Avoid some confusion. So, is anybody have a problem with scratching letter M? No. Okay. Uh, one last thing I think before we're done with this. Is anyone opposed to removing the notes?
No, I won't. No, please. That's fine. Splash away just to make sure that we're good with everything. Yeah. No, they should be in there with the Oh, no. We're in the next one. Sorry. Go ahead. All right. If that's all on Do you have anything? Hey. Well, unless it's
somewhere else that I missed um about the notice given. Where are we? U Well, I'm still in 2031, but I don't know if it's covered anywhere else about notice being given, the 3-day notice. It's in open and closed meetings. It is.
Is it? Okay. Yes, it is. Thank you. You're welcome. Then if there's nothing else on that, we'll move on to point two. the order of the regular schoolboard meeting. Any This is I've just read them so many times. Director Johnson on
203.2. Looks like you just crossed out the default and put in a Yes. 203.2 should be, and Martha, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. This should be our new meeting order that we have um that was recently
redone. And other than that, there should not Let me just double tap that. Oh, yes. And then um on the the back letter B um multiple comments from from board directors. Letter B did not make any
sense to anyone. Um okay. So, everyone kind of said like this should be struck. Okay. which is why it was the the language the following agenda order similar to um basically the chair at the time can change these like you did uh
chair white um because of the language here. So we don't want to get too picky about that. So like if you wanted to put administrative or board reports up at front, you are more than welcome to do that because all the only thing that
that language really states is that these particular areas be included. Yeah. Be covered regardless of the order you want to put them in. Okay. That's still similar. Yes. And then the program presentations
is actually showcase. Say it again. But does does the language cover everything in that Laker Pride special recognitions and program presentations? Does that cover everything we normally do? Showcase instead of program presentations. What do you think? Doesn't matter. Lakers
showcase instead of pride. Should No, no. No. Instead of program Laker showcase instead of program presentations. Okay. the last one. Okay, thank you. Getting to the same outcome. Yes. Just want to make sure they're not
run into a vocabulary. Laker showcase, pardon. So, special recognition stays the same. Yeah. Thank you. Um, is there part for new business? Did we miss that? Because there's unfinished business policy administr new business. Oh, there's no
new business. Always have new business, folks. That is true. Is it on the old? This is for the regular meeting though. The new business comes under the study sessions. No, no, no. New business comes under the Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. We rarely have anything in
unfinary. I know. We always have new business. It's part of It's part of Robert's order. Unfinished business. New business. It would be technically after the approval of the agenda in between 9 and 10. And you know that if it's No,
because there's approval agenda consent. Well, that's where it was tonight. So, I'm just new business would be after unfinished business. Yes. New business comes after unfinished business. Yeah. Great. This was one number 13 and a half if you want to. No. Okay. We'll You'll know what And
um here's the thing. I I personally, this is for Chair White. Um we we kind of state it earlier but not really. I know it's under your thing but the um the the following
agenda what we don't state it in here is the fact that you have the ability to determine the agenda. I know we state it with the chair, vice chair and superintendent. Um, but I mean if if if someone were to challenge this and
say, "Well, the board didn't agree to it and all that kind of stuff," did you want to restate it or at least have a recursive reference to the policy that states the role of the chair in here? I guess I I I'd have to I'd have to
consider that. On the top of my head, I can't give you an answer. The role of the chair is is specifically stated in statute and Robert's rules of order. So if we follow Robert's rules of order and we follow Minnesota statute, it's already defined. So yeah, but there's a lot of things we do that aren't in Robert's rules of order. And what you're
saying is I'm just saying that I I just, you know, based upon history, I do you want to codify my ability to Oh, we already talked about that in the other previous 200s that we went through about the role of the chair officers reference to the policy underneath here.
Yeah. Cross reference the policy. Okay. cuz you do cross reference it. It's in the operational procedure that the board submit or creates the agenda. Sorry, we did. No, we set our own operational. That's what I'm saying is the board
doesn't create the agenda. The chair and vice chair and superintendent do with the chair have final say number I feel like it's in another policy. Um 202. Okay. Add cross reference to policy 202. Perfect. Okay. board and
I'll just make a note for myself for chair responsibility or whatever school board officers and memberships what their responsibilities are 202 perfect if there's nothing else on point
two we can move to three um this is uh Charles anything give me one second no problem are you going 203.3 study sessions. 3.3. Okay. Study sessions. So, um, MSBA
doesn't have a study session. So, this is created based off of the previous one that we just went through. Um, Cher White and I had a discussion on this. There was a couple things. Um and then yes, but we are open to I think the
only thing we really wanted to do was um delete numbers delete letter C down at the bottom. Yes, that would seem to be a point of contention with a few board members and then everything else was
was pretty copetthetic with everyone. I think we should specifically state that we don't follow Robert's rules for small business in here. And I think Did we cover that by by inserting the word regular board meeting in the other policies? Yes, I think we did. Yes. You
know what I'm saying? No, I'm fine with that. I just didn't know if you wanted because um the school board shall conduct an orderly school board meeting. Um it just I don't I would hate for someone to come back and say, "Well, you didn't actually state it and therefore we're not, you know, whatever." Um and
then my only other suggestion is is um when I first I'm not sure if you remember this, Dan, but they used to do the pledge of allegiance at every the beginning of every meeting. all that sort of thing. And um it it w it added a formality to it, you know, and kind of
started the bookend process of the meeting. And I was talking to Charles about this today and I I I can go either way. I I put it this way. Study sessions are supposed to be a little less formal. And um you know, we don't do the national anthem before practice. We do
it for the games. And I think I think having the I think that a regular meeting is more worthy of the pledge than a than a study session. That's my personal opinion. So I agree. I just um I just remember when we did the and I I do I love the analogy. I think that's
very appropriate. It was just um I just remember when we all stood up and did it. Um it kind of you know we don't actually have the gavvel the whole bit. So that was it. But I'm I could go either way. I don't care. I'm not gonna fight for that one. Okay. So on
203.3 slashing C scratching C and anything else? Yes. Yes. So on B. So we can always have a regular business meeting session and it doesn't have to be at the beginning of the study session. It have to put a
time that like let's say 7 o' and Right? We can go anytime after seven. So what we can do is we can put it anywhere in the agenda wherever we feel it fits. So if it was at the beginning of the
meeting that's cleaner, right? You want to do a steady session and then have the business afterwards. That's fine. But we have to list a time on there and then we'd have to wait. I think that was in the original norms too. But yeah. Okay. So, how how how would you how are we to
what would be a I think it just should start at designated time. Didn't we have language before? There's language in there before that stated that. I thought, didn't we must be open and close start. Yeah, we've I think you would have to
legally do that. Yes. So, how about how about if we how do we say that? How about if we cross out start before the beginning of the study sessions to start at a designated time? I think that's fine. Then it could be before after closed separately and should start at a
designated time. Yes. That cool. Yeah. Martha, we've always had our designated time when we do the study session before a board meeting at like at 700 p.m. But wasn't that tied to
the requirement for public notice? This is good. No, I I get it. But I thought it was tied to requirement for public notice so people know that after a certain time it's going to happen regardless at that time or others. Yeah. Um and I I I don't think it's a huge
thing, but I don't want to say anything in there that's going to contradict the re this the statutory requirement for public notice. That's my concern. Like the language that we use. But you're talking about stuff like truth and taxation. And you have to say it h you have to allow public to speak at 6:00 or
something like that. Is that what you're talking about? No. No. I'm talking about the fact that when we have a board meeting, we've got a notice that so many days in advance and a time and that's where that time came from. Um so when you have a study session with a board meeting or a board meeting or study
session, you've got to provide so many so much notice and you've got to give it a time, right? Um that's all. And I and I know that's somewhere in statute, but I don't I I just and I'm sure what we put in here would be fine, but I just don't want to do anything that could
potentially contradict it. That's the only thing that I think you're you're referencing open and closed meeting law. No, no, no. I'm referencing the requirement to provide notice that we're going to have a meeting um regardless of
whether it's open or closed. And there's language in there that the same language we were just referring to that said we have to have at least a 3-day notice of that. So that's so what language what's that? So then why don't why don't we just meeting so why don't we um leave it
at at a designated time and you can double check double check and make sure I'll double it. Sure. Okay. Got it. 203.4 organizational meeting. Yes. So, same thing. Um, no MSBA on this
one, right? Uh, so it was built off of the regular meeting and this comes directly from our January 2025 organizational meeting, copy and pasted exactly how it is. Martha, please
correct me if I'm wrong on any of that, but it should be exactly verbatim everything in order. Number four, that would happen every two years. Yeah. That we wouldn't do a c ceremonial oath of office. Um, but when necessary
or when Yeah. Um, Martha, is there any There has been kind of changes to what we add on here and what we individually vote on. Is there any way that we can put um some looser language other than
similar to or something that would say that you know let's say um cuz we we talk the consent agenda a lot of those aren't voted as one. We do vote like on individual items uh and
take them out um like legal audit stuff like that that we individually vote on. It's not the typical consent agenda um that's routine um for all of them or voted as one. So, I'm wondering I don't want to be really
specific here to allow for the flexibility, but is there anything we can do with the following orders as similar to or like um any language we can put in there that could loosen this up so we're not if anything comes up in the organizational meeting that we have to
approve for the following year, statutory changes, individual stuff that's not part of the consent agenda. Um, I mean needed maybe just put something like that in there. Where? Okay. Where is where is our that would be under 3A
organizational meeting 3A um instead of order similar to um or um similar to an as needed um or designated by the chair. an agenda order similar to
or as needed per the chair or per administration because it's really administration that does the organizational meeting. It's not the chair. Does similar to doesn't cover it? I think a similar to covers it because you're really just talking about the order. You're not talking about the
content because you could put five different things in the consent agenda. An agenda order is different than adding new agenda items. And I don't want to get stuck. Anybody can similar to or as needed by or as designated by
administration. Um because like I don't determine you didn't. No. Yeah, that's not going to structurally change anything. If it No, if it uh adds a little comfort for the board, that's fine. What's the What's the language on
that? Got it. She's got it. You got it. It is similar to or as needed by or as needed by administration. Correct.
Yes. Somewhere I wrote designated, but I don't know or is designated. My only concern with the administration is that these are our board meetings. So I would I think it really should be the chair because the chair is the one who develops the agenda. Well, the problem is we've already written that policies
back there. We've already that's already been written in our 20 whatever policies. So, we want to keep the chair in conjunction with in collaboration with the superintendent. Dan, you were brand new. Um most a lot of times the organizational meeting is
set by administration of what we need to approve for the administration to be able to do their business. Um the previous school board chair. Yes, the previous school board chair if they don't run again is not there or if they're not the chair. So that's why
it's going to go to the vice chair. The the truth of the matter is is that Martha sets what's what's going to be on this agenda. I wonder if this is a little bit of an outlier cuz this this is going to be the organizational meeting order. Correct. Right. Going forward forever probably. Yeah. Mhm. Uh,
so I don't know if we need to I understand what you're saying saying, Mary, but um, so getting in the weeds or similar to covers I just feel like orders similar to covers any any variance that may come
up. I agree. Is that okay? I agree. I'm I'm fine with it. 203.5 reminding of our goal of 10:00 for those who have the meeting in the morning. See if we can
We're getting close. We're getting close. Uh school board meeting agenda. Charles, if you have anything to really Yeah. Yes. Can I Can I ask can we skip to 203.6 six and then go back to 203.5 because I think 203.5 might be the the
sticking points. The sticking point. We need fresher brains for that. Correct. Uh 203.6 Six is our consent agenda items from the organizational meeting again
from January and our regular meetings. And I think between uh Director Bullion, myself and Martha, we will make sure that everything is just double and triple tapped on on that to make sure that we have everything in there. I think we've done a fairly good
job of that just to make sure. But, uh, we I made a few comments on this one that I that were sent out. Um, one, um, the the consent agenda items, the definition is actually in our current board book that they're routine in
nature, blah blah blah blah blah. The words non-controversial or similar. Um, I don't, you know, again, I made a comment in there about the number of times things are pulled off and and and how some of that doesn't really fit
with the consent agenda itself. But I do believe the language that we use in our board book and have always used and it's the same language used by usually city councils, county commissions, etc., um covers
that B portion much better than the fairly legacy language out of the um MSBA template which is pretty old. So
if really consent agenda items should be routine in nature and we've had contracts that are recurring every year that show up in consent agendas. We've had other things, some things that I've actually questioned whether they belong or not cuz they're they don't seem
routine and I've been pointed to years and years and years of how they have been routine. So, I just want to make sure that we're leaving this as the routine in nature definition and not trying to be as discreet here as as some
of the language and using terms that are not necessarily um going along with how we've been doing this with, you know, saying actually defining them as non-controversial. I actually like the word non-controversial because there has been
things that have been put in the uh consent agenda that are considered controversial and they're put in there for a reason to avoid the conversation. So I personally that's describing motive. I don't want to go I don't want to go there but the word I think I don't
want them non-controversial is really important here because that's the whole and point of the con the consent agenda is you you're not really supposed to put things in there that are um controversial like they're they're supposed to be transparent. It's
supposed to be very routine in nature non-controversial. Um, and I don't want to give examples, but there's, you know, we get, we've been criticized for, oh, they threw it in the consent agenda just because they wanted to pass it and not talk about it. That's the whole point of the consent agenda is to make it very routine in
nature and the items should be non-controversial. I really actually really appreciate described non-controversial. I mean, what is the definition of non-controversial, right? that and going back to the definitions of how the MSA MS the vote on the MSHSA
policy that was put in the consent agenda. I mean there's one I'm seriously asking going back to the meeting that you guys had and you're talking about the policy that was talking about co uh conduct in a school and you struck all this language of what yelling or being
mean or whatever. I'm I'm literally asking how will that be universally defined of what is controversial versus non-controversial because what one thinks is the other might think it's not. So I think it's a
fair standard that you guys might want to uphold to not if you did it in one policy how are you going to do it in this policy. Appreciate your perspective Dr. Thomas. Um I think that's it goes back to that routine in nature and non-controversial. I think that those two words hand in hand um define that
they're not equal. I think in order in order to do that right um we would have to take out the ore. It would have to be non-controversial and routine in in nature because because that would then
if if I'm hearing because the routine word isn't in there which which director France mentioned and I agree with you Dr. Thomas, right? And I think to take right to hit that those words, it should it should read non-controversial and
routine in nature. Non-controversial is an extremely subjective term. It's very subjective and it is not appropriate for here. I'm just going to state that right off the bat. I don't know about saying it's non because it's came from MSBA, right? Yeah. And it's written in other people
who have this policy. It's exactly how it's written. This has come and there's a reason why it's in there. This comes from MSBA policy, model policy. Yes, it's a I think avoiding the and or is always a
good thing, right? Um non-controversial though, I mean it is a subjective it is it is subjective. I mean, and to we don't need to belabor that, but it
it re it truly is subjective. Um, and so is there language another word or language that would be sufficient? Um because non I mean I understand what you're saying and I
don't disagree with the items are to be non-controversial but that word in and of itself is subjective because just like whoever said what one might consider controversial another might not
and there's but the whole language in here this is extremely legacy language from decades old and it has other language in here that do not require further discussion or explanation, which means that if they don't, you're not taking stuff off the consent agenda.
Where in our policy in our board book when we go through in our board thing, when we go through the definition of the consent agenda that repeat every time above the consent agenda, that language is every I mean, do people have problem
is there problems with that language that we've been using? Um the as far as like what they read at the beginning. Yeah. I think if we look at what we had what we had what we what we've had it's on it's on the agenda. We
can just go look. Yeah. It's May 5th consent agenda and then read what it says. Items in are considered to be routine in nature and would be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items of these items unless a board member of or citizen so requests in which event
the item will be removed as consent agenda and addressed the removal of an item for discussion must be requested prior to the approval of the consent agenda. So I'm fine leaving routine in nature. I I just appreciated the non-controversial because it's like I
said it's it it to me it is exactly what they should be very routine in nature. So if we want to use routine in nature that's fine. I'm fine with Are you fine with we are we are you fine with taking what we have written here and putting it
on B I think so. Yeah. Yeah. What she just read I have no problem with. Yeah. And does anybody have a problem with what we've been using? Yeah, that's fine. It's exactly says the exact same thing. Okay. So I don't like question. So I think that makes sense. uh
in uh under the regular meeting um 2D PMA financial. So I I'm just curious that we have a company specifically named in policy. So I would advise the board.
Where are we? I'm sorry. Am I I'm I'm maybe I'm behind 203.6. No, you're right. It does say policy under the purple lettering two called regular meeting, right? And then take a look at
2D. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I I I think that's a carry. I don't think we should list a specific. Good catch. Um, just financials. Yeah. And and the financials, you know. What should it say? It's already We've
got financials. I would just I would just strike striking B. is a financial report that's called the PMA financial right but that's but if they change the name or do whatever it's a financial report for our investments that's but
yeah we should let's uh let's make sure we understand cuz let let me talk with Tammy um tomorrow and ask what that report would be called in a bond report or something it's capturing that like a
portfolio investic can we just say investment report. No, we just need No, the PMA financial is where the Yeah, I know. I'm investment report. It's not necessarily an investment report. So then you'll get back. You just asked
Tammy the generic way of investment report. A generic term for that. Yeah. For that 2D. Okay. Strike O. The reassignment that was just a oneon strike O. Yeah. And if we go if we ever have a building bond referendum, the regular meeting and the finances
also increase to show the the balance of the bond investment and god knows what else. So getting some more generic language in there that says the same thing would probably be best for the for the uh in general for the detail that's
in here. um try to figure out how to make it so that encompasses the spirit of what's supposed to be in there and not necessarily the line items of just what we've been doing for the point in time. Are you
suggesting shortening this to have just a broader Am I capturing what you're saying? Well, just what what Dr. Thomas suggests that we talk to Tammy about about the what well what to call some of these in here.
It was I was only saying the one because it can be misconstrued as a singular company, right? also the others I wasn't weighing in on. But um there's a few things in here that would change like say if we did pass a referendum. Yeah.
There would be three or four more things in there and you know so is there a way that we can put language in here that's going to encompass enough of what is actually in here without having to be detailed. Well, it does say under B though, such
agenda items might include ministerial tasks such as but not limited to. Mhm. And they should be routine in nature. That's the thing that we go back to that. So, as long as this line because we we replaced be here. Yeah. So, that's that last sentence might might cover
anything that might need to be added during specific periods of time. Yeah, that's I think is a good idea. Use our description. Oh, I would just ask to add that last line and then just add to this this last sentence. Yeah. So that we can like Dr. Director France is saying it
allows for different periods of time like if like bond issues pass. It's the big the important one is but not limited to. So keeping this Yep. Last allows us to add something add
things to the agenda that might be temporary in nature. Yep. Thank you. that are routine that are still routine during that temporary time. And we like that language. Such agenda items might include ministerial tasks such as but not limited to. Yes. Okay.
Next. Okay. 203.5. We're backing up and we're after 10. It is 10:05. I suggested us trying to wrap up by 10 and continuing this at the May session. So, do we feel like 203.5 is a
lot of lot of discussion points get through it or could we finish 203? It's actually a short policy. I want to be respectful of those that have an early meeting in the morning and I think it's a good stopping point
actually if if we feel like the next, you know, because these are going to get approved and still in time for our our deadline. Um, so we're just gonna push these to the next study session. That is my suggestion based on because then then let's do another one. Let's do another.
No, I understand. I understand. And so is that if that's okay with everybody. I don't think we're we're in a super time crunch as long as we're still on schedule. Understanding that this might affect the next study session in May um by adding a couple to it. Um I just it's
if we're good, let's get out of here. There's just two, right? Um except for we do have to go through the rest of the agenda. There's a few more things on the bottom. Please, there is. You are correct. All right. So, we'll move on to the uh Oh, and then before I before we move on,
uh the schoolboard vacancies that were suggested in here, and appreciate Director Fran getting the quick response. Those are actually going to be discussed or meant to be discussed on May 28th. So you have the full month to kind of peruse them and and send our feedback if we have recommendations.
Okay. In advance of that. So you have plenty of time on the 2011.1 if you want to. Mhm. And then uh future agenda topics. Administrative reports. Um did I miss something? Yes. 16
administrative report. Oh. Oh. Am I in the wrong We're in a study. Oh, sorry. I'm in the wrong meeting. I'm I'm already in one report a night. I'm already in May. Sorry. Sorry. My sincere apologies. I was in the wrong meeting. Okay. Why are those policies in
May then? That's so weird. Okay. Anything on anybody's mind? Gonna approve that. Oh, we're approving MMA. That's why I Yes, I have some things. So, Oh, but everybody else can go first. I don't want to go first. It came to mind when we were talking about open
enrollment. I would love um some information on open enrollment and just further discussion on um and maybe this goes with some of the budget discussion um and potential school closures, but I think some discussion around so exactly
policy on if we need to adjust that going forward with school closures, things like that. So, you're looking for like numbers in and out or uh because I think the state statute pretty much covers how many we're letting in and if there's criteria um each year the board
um takes a vote on whether or not you're going to cap open enrollment. Believe that every year that they do that, right? So, I think we can tie that as part of with Yeah, the timing would align just fine. Our recommendation
won't have to go until October of what we're going to do. So we'll we'll I mean we've done open enrollment reports as part of enrollment in the past and so usually break it out. So we can open next update easily share kind of what we
are tracking. Yeah. Yeah. I think that would be helpful as we discuss building so that okay so that will be just another agenda item tied to a existing report existing enrollment report. Yeah. So then I won't necessarily have to make that separate. Yeah. And I think if I'm
not mistaken, Director Frederickson already wrote that down when you suggested earlier. I just know if we needed like a discussion topic around it further. It'll be part of the ongoing report then moving forward at least for the whenever you can cobble it together.
I don't think there's huge hurry. Anyone else? Um I have I was It's been a lot of um traffic recently and a lot of
accidents um around the high school, around the middle school. So, if we can and this might be something that that's that's coming up school safety, outdoor safety, um
maybe even I understand it might stretch into like the city, those types of things. Um, but there's a there's a lot of discussion and noise around town and if there's anything that we can maybe do
with that. Um, and even bringing in city officials to address those things when because normally those things I feel come back to us anyways because they are entering and exiting the schools. Um,
so what exactly? So I know in the past we've had joint meetings uh around that. I don't know if if uh well we have issues with people complaining about the congestion, people not following the rules in the
parking lot and then you've got the issues of coming and going from our parking lot. I would say coming and going definitely. Um not so much parking lot. There's but there's been more than a few accidents towards the high school lately. Um a few
things around the middle schools. So um well and I think I I would just like to add to this. Um I mean I saw one of those accidents, but I think the conversation has been was there a conversation had when we added the upper new ad new upper level entrance how it impact traffic? How does that impact the
traffic flows up there? Um, I don't know if there ever was because that that if you try to drop your kid off in the morning, it's so how would that manifest? Would it uh I want make this something that we can get some consensus. Would it be a I
don't know a report from high school admin on and what their protocols are or even how many accidents there's been reported in the last year. We could get maybe something from the city to say how many accidents have been reported at that one intersection. I mean, that would be good to know, too. the school probably knows. They probably get notice
of it as well. But then but then that then some the public would need to go to the city and say this isn't going to cut it. You need to do I think that has already begun to take place. I think I think so too. And I feel like this is just something because
right public safety I know we're I know we're going to have a talk about about that soon. I don't know if this is something that we could colllocate the two with one another. Um or if that's even too soon to say like that's a lot of information to to go to and this is
very broad. Um so I I just don't know how we or do we need to add a crossing guard or I mean that's resources go. Yeah. Before you jump to solutions, we need to figure out do we have a what's the what's the ask because I don't I want to make sure we're not because it's
real be real really easy to get into Savage's lane here in our discussion and I know you're not but sure that it's so easy to get we have a representative going to the city right now and dealing with this or is it even in our pro I
mean both Dan and Haley work with our SRO's and um dealing with any accidents and things of that nature, but it's it's well, from my opinion, it's bigger than just accidents because uh the congestion piece that you're
talking about, people waiting uh you know, I know my sister-in-law hears about it because she lives two blocks away from the high school and they're all parked down on the culdeac waiting for kids to get out, you know. So, and they they've explored conversations with
the city. Um, and the city may or may not add signs to say no parking during x amount of hours, you know, similar to what we have at Lola on the hill. Um, but then that's a city issue, not our issue. Um, do we still have an issue
with Hamilton Ridge and the congestion coming in and out of that subdivision? I haven't heard anything, you know, on my radar. That was over there recently. It was addressed by the school though like like you said crossing guards or like is that are maybe that's what the qu the
ask is like are there options we maybe How about this? How about how about an update? I mean I'm sure high school administration is very aware what's going on up there. Would a would a would an update from high school admin at some point um about traffic flow
about just just yeah just how the how they what their what their plans are, how they handle it, what what they've been add can we I know the high school is probably the primary concern. Um I just I deal with middle school daily
basis, right? It's that's a not any funner than that. And there's quite a few. It's also 10 times better than it used to be. Trust me, it it absolutely is. I completely agree. It's still not great. And yeah, maybe even just having the the SRO's come in with them and
seeing what they're what they're encountering with with the middle schoolers on on the ebikes. I know the ebikes have been a a So, what if we just have Dan do an update? Yeah, maybe a publication. And I would assume that Dan does will know what to do or he's going
to advise you and Dr. Thomas on the timing for this particularly. You don't want to preempt any discussions with either city, Prior Lake or Savage. Yeah, we'll start there. Maybe maybe that's maybe that's way to go. I'll start there. Involve as few people. Is the will of the board or is the consensus to
come back with a uh a secondary update on um traffic safety traffic traffic safety um in students? My question I think that would be great. My question to you Dr. Johnson is like I completely
understand wanting to know more. My question is, is this in this stage? Is this a good agenda item? Does that make sense? That's why Dan needs to Dr. Thomas to
talk about the stage that it's actually in. I completely agree and understand wanting to know more and all of that, but is it are we re What's the word I'm looking for? Is this too Is this premature to have it
be an agenda item? To answer your question, my reasoning of of now is we're we're we're getting ready to move into summertime and we can start with the conversation like Dr. Thomas just said, and if we can move into something, we can start having the conversation
with the city, with the cities, excuse me, and then maybe we can come to a resolution before school begins in the fall. That would be and just to be clear, it wouldn't be the board having the discussion with the city. It would be Dan Powers who's representing
essentially that's probably already underway. So we So the timing of it needs that would be great to know. That's that's that's more my question for is it a board agenda item or is it just work we'd like to see done by
that's I guess that's my and I think the update that Dr. Thomas suggested it would be more of an update because our our power is pretty limited here because the city was is the final arbiter of what they do anyway. Okay. Okay. I have um two things on my list.
Um one we've already talked about but I wanted to get more definition around it and when it's going to happen and it's the discussion of the reworking of the ANI funds and my it comes out of one the strate the timing of the strategic plan. So aligning the funds to the strategic
plan. It also um I think expediates expediates the reason for bringing this to the board based on what we heard from the APAC committee and their focus on closing achievement gaps. Um, and then thirdly, I'd like to have the
conversation sooner than June so that we could, um, if we do need to readjust funds to align with those three things, um, it could be done before we approve this budget for the next year. So, my
understanding I speak on on your behalf, I mean, the the budget for this ANI plan has been has already been approved. We have the we have the right and the authority to revise the plan especially this last third year at any time and but
it's the you know we obviously we would want administration to bring back their ideas of what they're recommending um based on the things that we've heard um and then it would come back to the you know we get a presentation these are the recommendations and then we as the board can discuss it make suggestions whatever
it might be and then Dr. Dr. Thomas, my understanding is you take it back to MDE and make sure it aligns with their statutory requirements is what I I understand. Yeah. For that third year. Well, I mean the plan the plan and the budget have been approved by this board,
right? But the plan can be revised and and the I'll go I'll go back to um director or vice chair Bulling's point. Um with all the pressing things that were are on our plate right now
with the the the thing for me is reworking uh currently some admin salary resources. I can do that without doing anything to the plan. I can realign it's it's similar to their district budget. We have a district budget and based upon
es and flows and needs, we make adjustments all throughout the year to to address that. I don't I don't need to rewrite a plan and and do a comprehensive rewrite and I I won't have time to bring it through TNL because if I'm gonna do
this as I take the more direct um oversight of that work, it's going to go through TNL. It's going to go through finance committee. It's going to go through channels. I can't get that done this year.
It's it's I I won't have the time. our our meetings, our committees are done in May. Well, I will say I'm disappointed to hear that because we talked about this back in February. So, and that was the will of the board to move forward with this. The will of the board was never to rewrite I've never heard the
will of the board to rewrite uh an entire ANI plan and a whole new ANI budget. It was never to realign the plan the realign the funds to our strategic plan. That was what we talked about in February. So I realigning the the funds
um Director Atinson can be done absolutely can be done. Um and aligning it to academic excellence as part of our strategic plan and putting those dollars closer to our students absolutely can be done.
Um so so that that's that's my that is my plan. Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, I I just don't recall the will of the board saying it's on the it's on the minutes. So, you can you can all go back and write read
you can all go back and watch the the meeting. So, well, we had a we talked about I brought it up and then we said, "Okay, let's go ahead and we go ahead and talk about that." Um, so it was a future agenda item topic. It's in the it's in the minutes. Which which meeting? It's February. I'd have to go
February study session. Yeah. It's the 28th I think that was. And that's why I've been asking Dr. Thomas, you and I have talked about this multiple times. Talk about this about realigning the resourc. I've sent you examples. So for example, Forest Lake, I have that district example of what is in the exact same timing as we are. And I can send I
will send all of you board members FYI do not respond a copy of this plan because I think it's really important to see it. And based on the feedback from Apac and their comments about closing this achievement gap, I think we really need to reook at our plan and really
focus in on this academics and closing the achievement gap. And the way that Forest Lake writes their plan, it's very specifically focused on that. Um, and so, um, that was my ask and that was the, like I said, I thought the will of the board since February and I've been
patiently waiting for that. Um, so I don't know how we move forward with that. Um, um, so I don't remember it either. Um, nor you know, and all of our ANI budget has been within statutory requirements.
Um, so um, reworking it and all that kind of stuff I don't believe was ever brought up. Um, if it was, it was probably by you, but I don't remember us ever going through and getting a will. the board to
redo the ANI funding. It's it's in the minutes. Chair France director France the budget and the reallocation based upon salaries doesn't really I mean it I do much I do support and I thought we
were going to look at the funding also for ANI planning and and I agree it also you know with the change and the director role and um shifting those funds and APAC and focusing on academic achievement gap well here I thought that was I think I think we need to be so
that it's ready for the fact that right we I think Dr. Thomas taken a gigantic step in reallocating a big chunk of that by eliminating a position specifically to target it more toward kids. Where that
gets targeted is is the how in my my opinion. Um, and we haven't even had a chance to sit down with APAC yet since since that last meeting and even cobbled together a response letter that we're required to
do within that 60-day limit. Um, February, we didn't know we were position anyways. I I don't know what where we'd target it until we had a chance to get together with these folks, figure out what we're not doing in their eyes. I I I don't know. Yeah. Yeah, like the Lake Forest plan's very specific
like increase Native American um you know math achievement by 10 points and I mean it's very specific. We have that we have those goal metrics in our they're very generic. They're very I mean they're very high level very
specific cultural groups as well. We do but there there's one based on attendance. I think I I'm talking focusing those goals on courses and others really honing in and focus on academic achievement based on our strategic plan. I guess I'm having a really hard time understanding why we
wouldn't reallocate or reook at those funds. We have a new strategic plan and this plan this plan was written two years ago and so why wouldn't we realign it? It makes no sense to me. Well, I I don't I think we are. Yeah. I I guess
maybe I'm just asking to have the update come to the board. If if Dr. Thomas is working on it, then let's have it come to the board so we can take a look at it. I I don't want to I don't want to allocate specific time on this. It's going to be part of the overall budget. It's already being done. Um, our plan is
statutoily compliant and there's we got to quit cherrypicking one out of 380 or 70 school districts to say, "Oh, do this for this one and do that for that one." We have our plan. It's been approved. We're going to It's not working though.
That's the problem. It's not working. Hold on. Hold on. That is We are not closing that achievement gap. Director Director France, in all fairness, we heard it from their community. So, we've heard a lot of things from that. We have not developed a response to that. And by the way, it's there's a lot behind that.
So, I would prefer if we look at it holistically as we go into the next budget year and not cherrypick stuff out right now. And my my point is just I wouldn't know what to recommend until I I mean, who knows if one how many meetings it's going to take to come some
kind of a maybe a new working relationship with this group. I don't know, maybe it's one, maybe it's four. I Well, the reworking of the plan can come after that meeting. I think that that's a really great directive to be honest with you. From my perspective, I mean, the budget doesn't change, right? It's how
we're using those funds. That's how you're using the financial. And so, I think that's the important discussion and I personally would love to see some discussion around that before the start of the school year because I would hate to waste another school year for these students. Right. Agreed. This is that's
why I made the decision and I'm working through how we're going to reallocate some of those funds directly to address some of what we've heard from Apac also what we see in our data um with various student groups in their
achievement and bringing additional supports that will bring that kind of academic you know tutoring support etc on top of what's happening in the classroom. Um that is the direction that I'm moving in. That's what you and I have been talking about. And um so again
I I I just right tonight I guess I've never heard the will of the board to completely redo the plan. That was my first. So, I misunderstood your individual comments for the will of the board because like I
said, if I'm going to do this, well, when I do this team, it's going to be in a different process than what we've done in the past to engage different committees um and participation in the development of this uh and um so that we
have a targeted focus moving forward. And I that's I'm not wavering from that. So, can I just make a comment or just a thought too? I think we all would agree
we want to be in compliance with the for for Apac. Um we all want the achievement gaps to the community. I mean, we all want that. And there's another um part that we don't control.
So I think that there is work in motion right now. Um there are changes being made. There was a position eliminated to to direct funds and and th this conversation needs to be an ongoing
thing. Um but the the thing that isn't discussed or hasn't been really said is the the achievement it includes the students too and it includes that communities. I mean, we can do all of
the things and you know, we we heard from that like some of them are they just are um they're just going to vote non-compliant and and I we have to we have to work on that relationship. We
have to build the relationship. We have to put the things um in place. I feel like we're we're we are doing work. We are we haven't arrived. We definitely have places for improvement and we cannot
force achievement. We can allocate. So instead of allocating resources for paintings, we can allocate resources for tutors. That is we're getting too close into this conversation. I do think I think we're getting too far in the weeds and I agree with you and I think all I want to
know is like could we get the will of the board to have Dr. Thomas start that process of reworking that last year the plan and start like you said if you want to go through the process of taking it through TNL and taking it through finance I fully support that I think that's great um but can we get the will
of board that that that's where you want to start the process the process what he's been trying to say is the process is already underway and it has been underway and that's the house so what I heard so um and I I for one um do not want this as a separate agenda item
before the the budgets the final budget in June hopefully is passed. Um because I don't believe it's I think it's part of the whole I don't believe it's a separate item. I think it's going to detract from the whole budgeting and and
preparation as we go into not only more budget cuts but also the allocation of the funds to support the overall strategic plan because it's already happening. So I I didn't hear the will of the board the first time. I didn't even hear I don't remember any of this conversation of reworking and I it
wasn't this detailed. It was but please go look on the agenda. Um if if it Well, I'm not going to speculate but we would have I would have agreed the board would have agreed to a discussion. We wouldn't have agreed to a rewriting of the plan. It was a discussion, right? And so I'd
have a hard time committing to Michael to rewriting a plan when my guess is he's already starting on the rewriting of the next three years. Um, no, that that doesn't we we we do that as a board. Well, when that comes up, but we
have the authority to rewrite this last year as well. You're right. We do. Actually, we delegate that, too. and and yeah, I I'd have a hard time going down that road when it's when Michael's already indicated that that process has already
begun to the next three years in a completely different direction. I believe that the structural changes to next year's allocation is um is potentially a gigantic change in
in the in the potential success of our plan. That's my personal opinion. And can we see that though? Yeah. I mean, it's good to believe and it's good to think and wish and dream, but can we have some content behind that? He's planning on on coming to the board on
the June study session. Yeah, that's when I was going to be sharing this information as to the the direction that we're taking as we begin to make these shifts. Um it that's kind of that big focus of our work our work session is around academics and this is to your
part a lot of the little pieces equating to the whole of what we're attempting to do differently moving forward. This is included in that conversation. So that's that's my plan. Um and you all can provide perspective
and feedback on that as we move along in that direction. Um but my my focus is to bring more direct student support first and foremost. I mean we we've got to find ways to support kids differently. Okay. I just had one other thing. I'm sorry.
I'll try to make it brief but I think it's timely. Um my understanding is teachers have um they are able to preview the MCA scores. So is it possible that next month we could get a just a brief update on how the MCA scores are looking
um because I understand they have moment at time they can go in they've seen them they they can go in and look at them as far as how they are how they're um looking. Um let me touch base with Dr. ambush to ensure that we present
something that's fairly clean. Yeah. Because there are errors and issues that come up as we start going through and cleaning and scrubbing the data files. So as soon as we can do that, um I can let the board know when we could have a preliminary, you know, conversation
rather than waiting till October. My other last item was just that um an update maybe on summer school programming. Um Dr. Thomas and maybe this will be included in your June but I know we had some discussion around MCA
preview preliminary I'm sorry y say that was green meltdown update or discussion around summer school programming and offering and maybe that will be included in June I'm not sure but I I wasn't planning we've
never it's not but if that's the will of the board how would that manifest itself I mean we we have programs comes planned for the summer. My understanding is it's just a budget discussion, right, going forward and how we're handling it and
for summer school. Correct. Do we even know what the teachers are recommending what the Yeah, it's our it's our we're running very similar summer school that we ran for the past several years. What I meant what I meant is um we we offer
the same things but who qualifies what the special needs are and the and the actual target we have targeted criteria that we're utilizing. So all of that the same criteria. Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm what I'm saying is is that we don't
know that parents and kids have not been told and we don't know the numbers and stuff like that. Right. We don't know numbers yet. But um teachers were identifying based upon student performance versus like this open call, right? Um very targeted to get the kids
who really need it most because we have a smaller dollar aotment and and for this year we now only have a smaller dollar. I understand that we lost transportation also, right? There's no funding for transportation. Yeah. because so that's we used the update I
wanted to talk about and if we you know further down the road do we need to allocate funding for I don't know I'm just bringing it up as a topic again I'm looking for a specific um administration to be clear on what we're asking
um is this like a an update on this once we have some numbers in June an update on how the programs are looking or do you want I I'm still confused as to or just I guess my I was curious the changes that
we've had to make due to funding and then that's for this summer and then also looking down the road um as we start budgeting further down the road are there further funding allocations we need to consider for the programming.
Does that make sense? Yeah. Making sure it's making sure it's funded for 2526. Right. Right. I mean that's Yep. Yep. Is any have a problem with that? I just I'm I'm gonna ask Dr. Thomas to try
and I know that we've talked about this usually as part of the overall budget and then usually after the summer's ended to talk about Yeah, we do we do an update as to how the summer programming went and all that. Would that be an appropriate window to Yeah, I think just
at some point. Yep. We've done that with Michelle and Joel both this year will do the ESY and you'll get so so that's already usually done in okay early school year I guess my only ask would it be consideration
for budgeting for 2526 do we need to allocate budget so I think we'll probably let me weave some of that inquiry into the June conversation okay um because that's also where I'm looking
to move ANI funding more towards um and how we do that because we started doing that this year with the breakmies and we're doing that this summer with some of our ANI funding to support um summer learning as well which is a little different than what we've
ever done. So that's part of that. So is summer school programming uh this is this summer's program 2425 or is it both or is it 26 2526? Yeah, cuz July one happens. Yeah, this
is for 2425 the entire summer. No, no, it's only for four weeks. Okay. So, but it's out of 2425 budget. That's what I'm getting at. Even though it might happen after July. So, no, we're No, our our summer program
is still the same four-week program that we're doing. Okay. And it's done. It's done by July 1. Yeah. And so, as we move forward, um Okay. Some of the other ANI rewrite and re reallocation, I should say, is going toward supporting that
programming into the school year for the for the 25 26 school year. All right. I think it's relevant for the community because the the criteria has changed. You're clear on the 2526, not for the 2425.
Criteria has changed. Didn't we already have it? Maybe we'll touch on it in budget. Yeah, you're going to touch on it already in budget. Okay. Because I know we've already discussed it, but I think it was before you got on the board. There is no other potential future agenda topics. We can
adjourn.