No share screen. >> That's fine. >> All right, Sarah, you should be able to unmute at will now. >> Just take just take >> Sorry. Go ahead, >> y
It is 7 o'clock. I call the uh whatever day today is January 8th school committee meeting to order. >> That's very professional start right there. [laughter] >> Uh so we're going to have uh we've got a member remote tonight, so we'll do everything by roll call. So, we'll first do a call to order. Sarah
>> here. >> Aaron >> here. >> Tom [laughter] >> here. Carla >> here. >> Laura >> here. >> And Sean is here. Okay. Let me do a quick uh walk through the agenda and then we'll jump in. Um we'll start with public comment. If Dr. Cororm has anything to say on anything that's not
on the agenda tonight, um we will not have a focus on excellence this evening. We'll move to our consent agenda. um go into reports and then in the new business section um we'll we're tonight's the first night of our three nights of budget discussions. So we'll um have an overview of the sort of
process to developing the budget. Tonight um we'll have a pres you know presentation of the budget itself and any discussion on that. Um, and then two weeks from now, we'll have our formal public hearing on the budget where, you know, we'll open the hearing, see if there are any questions, close the
hearing probably about 8 seconds later if if uh history is any guide, and then um we'll take our formal vote to submit the budget on the 29th uh would be the plan. Um so, tonight's just the first night of a three-ight process. Uh in the old business section, we're going to
revisit fees on transportation. There's some additional information in the packet that the committee requested last time and then we will have a further discussion and hopefully take a vote to approve next school year's calendar. In the new business section, um we've got some updates and some uh items to
approve in terms of the superintendent search process. So that is our agenda for this evening. Let's start with public comment for anything that is not on the agenda. Anybody? Nope. Okay. Uh let's move then to the consent agenda. And is there a motion? I move to approve
the consent agenda. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> And we will go to a roll call. Sarah, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Aaron, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> Carla, >> yes. >> Laura, >> yes. >> And Sean, yes. Thank you. Okay, let's go to reports and we will start with our students.
>> All right, we got a pretty short one tonight, but still full page. All right, upcoming events. Starting on January 13th, we have Junior Guidance parent night. uh kind of starting to walk junior families such as my own through the college application process which is
I don't know unfortunately or fortunately beginning for us right about now. So there's a good amount of time before we have to really start worrying about applications with this kind of kind of kind of trying to get the ball rolling. On the 20th we have future freshman night at 6:30 p.m. that'll be welcoming all the [clears throat] rising
freshmen there that are currently in 8th grade. January 20th through 23rd it's getting ever closer our midterms. So, we'll have a week full of those. On January 26th, there will be a PTO quarterly board meeting from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the library here. On January 29th, there will be career day
for juniors. We'll talk more about that later. And then also on the 29th, we have 8th grade arts freshman night um to it's like a future for Hush Knight, but specifically for the arts. So, now the news. >> Yeah. Um uh so, Alumni Day took place on
January 6th. uh 15 recent RMHS graduates returned to the high school and spoke about their first experiences to the senior class. This is an annual event that is incredibly informative to seniors that are in the midst of deciding which colleges to attend and determining their paths after high school. The alumni also stayed for an
additional hour and met with the administration, counseling staff, and department heads for a more in-depth discussion about where they were where about where they were prepared for college or where they saw that RMHS had an opportunity to better prepare graduates for life after high school. Miss Williams organizes this event each
year and it is pivotal in our work for continued growth and such a moment of pride to see RMH's graduates persisting and succeeding in their life after high school. I was there. It was a pretty informative session. And I know a lot of people went so they could say hi to their old friends. I know some in
particular were like Justin Ramo um and Tama um who I haven't seen in forever. So yeah. >> And last thing going back to Career Day uh which will be on January 29th. Like we said, we're super excited because we've expanded career day this year to include over 40 different professionals
um attending with representation from fields of medicine, public service, law, arts, design, trades, business, counseling, all that good stuff. So, we're really happy because we got so much more uh diversity in terms of different career paths. So, the guidance
team share that they're really hoping that the junior class will be able to kind of find something that suits their liking or find a few things that will kind of push them in the right path about where they want to go to college, what they want to study. So, everyone's hoping it's going to be a really informative day. I hope it's going to be really informative day as someone who
has no clue what he wants to be when he grows up. So, >> join the club. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> But, uh, yeah, we're looking forward to that. And that is everything we have, >> Junior. >> Awesome. Yeah, we did. >> Yeah. Thank you both. >> Question. Yeah, please. >> Sachi, do you recall anything that they
that you heard from Justin Tammy and others that in particular >> was an area of growth and improvement for us? >> I don't know. Um >> and an area that we did really well in. I want both actually. [laughter] >> Um I didn't hear anything specific that wasn't necessarily like like new
knowledge to me. Um, what I will say is that some of my friends did like think like, oh, like we would like more like maybe more like one-on-one opportunity to talk to the people um who were there like privately that you didn't, you
know, need to like go and ask in front of everyone. Um, for me it wasn't there wasn't much new knowledge. I just enjoyed seeing all my friends and stuff and it was um great. So yeah, that was pretty much my take on it. I'll give you a um my Sophia was there and one of the
things she had mentioned was that one of the students >> in some of these colleges the um getting into clubs is really competitive. It's not like you can't just join a club, you have to like interview for it. So, one of the students said they would have liked more like one-on-one interview
skills so they could do that. And and I guess for the the schools that are requiring an interview, right? You want those types of skills. >> That would I think that would be great. I know like I tried to go for an interview for an internship recently um
like a senior internship, which like I couldn't do because of my AP classes, but I still wanted to go um and see if it was possibility during the summer. But like I remember emailing like Mr. Scaff who was coordinating all of it like do I need a resume? Like what do I do for this? Like a lot of us like I
have job experience like coaching tennis but I don't have job experience like actually working at like professional job. So I know like for some people who also went for interviews like people weren't sure whether they should dress up, how should they bring their resume, how many copies of the resume should they bring, what should be on their
resume and I feel like the high school doesn't really offer much when it comes to that especially considering how competitive the job market is at the moment um for people straight out of high school. for people straight out of college. Um, I think that might actually
be really really useful to have something like that here. So, >> yeah, >> they have those dress for success that I remember in college having, but I think in business school they kind of they give you a little bit more of that. But, um, I I can actually still remember the
woman who did the presentation because she came in in a very frumpy outfit and I and I was like, really? She's gonna be teaching us >> heads >> and well those were in um but then she and I got that Sean. Thank you. [laughter] And um [clears throat] and she um and
then she literally started taking off layer of layer of clothing until she looked fabulous, you know, like in her professional suit. And I just I didn't forget it because it's important. So, but those types of interview skills and stuff um
>> yeah would be a good thing. >> It's good feedback. >> Awesome. >> Interesting memes out of this meeting. [laughter] >> Thank you both. You know the drill. You're welcome to hang out, but >> you also have a million other things going on. So, >> skip the economics part of it. >> We get it.
>> Totally not like that's what I'm going to major in. >> All right. Uh let's go to reports and we'll start with Dr. Moesky. Great. Two quick updates. One, calling all future rockets. Kindergarten registration is now open as of last night, which is exciting for the next generation of
students. Uh we're encouraging uh all community members with uh kindergarten age or now preschool uh kindergarten eligible students to register ASAP. We've shared in all of our materials to be guaranteed placement at home school. Please register within the month. So, uh we've talked about kindergarten uh
projections. We know how kind of they tight they are in some schools. So, uh, if you're out there and you're watching and you have a kindergarten age student, please make sure to register ASAP. More information on the, uh, on the website. Two, just to also flag a community, uh, I think what's become an amazing community event every year is on January
19th, the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. >> [clears throat] >> uh, celebration, uh, which is, I think, a great collaboration between so many of our departments across the schools and towns. And something I really like is that every year I feel like it's increasingly uh, planned and executed, facilitated by students. So I think that uh Albert Ples
his team have done a great job leaning on so many of our talented students. So 9:30 to 11:30 here at the pack with the breakfast would love to see so many members of the community come out uh to be here for what is really a wonderful uh community event. >> Great. Let's do uh liaison reports. Um
Sarah, I'll wait for you to come on video to know you're ready. Oh, there you are. We'll give you a minute. Let's start [laughter] with Aaron. >> No report. Aaron, >> no report. >> Tom, um, CPAC on Monday had their review
with Phil. Um, I haven't heard anything, so hopefully it went well. Uh, which not hearing something is usually a good sign. [laughter] And, uh, not much to say regarding us with regards to select board or finance committee. Um, I will
say that these books finally came in. Um, so we'll be dropping them off after this meeting uh down at the central office so the staff can start their professional learning appropriately. >> Did we mention that the select board did extend the contract with RCTV or sign a new contract with RCTV which certainly
is relevant to us. So >> fair is there for the schools. Yeah. >> I can't remember if that happened before or after our last meeting. >> I think it was after our last meeting or right when we were meeting is I think is what happened. Yeah, >> that's right. >> How long of a contract? >> Uh it's three years. >> Three years. Yeah.
>> Three. >> Yeah. >> Three or four. >> I thought it was three. >> Three with options maybe. >> Who knows? There's a contract for now, >> but not like another six months. Six months. It's a It's a sort of a full contract term. So, >> uh, Carla,
>> I'll just make it quick. Um, we have our next KSBC meeting on January 20th, and we've had meetings for on three different topics. Furniture, fencing, the barricade, not the sport, um, and room numbering. Who knew room numbering could be so
difficult? But it is. It [laughter] >> is. >> One, two, three, four, >> Laura. >> No report. >> Uh, and I've got nothing else. So, that's good. All right. Um, so let's hand >> Oh, yeah. Dr. Corin, please.
>> Jeffrey Cor finance committee. Just as sort of a finance committee leazison thing. I wanted to point out there is a department of local services. The state is coming to reading to give a financial policy training workshop on Thursday the 29th. So if anyone's interested in that, contact me or Joe Carneahan, the the
incom chair. The registration is due tomorrow. So I'm not >> Yeah, it's during the day. >> It's during the day. Yeah. 9 to1. >> Oh, I was like we have our budget vote that night. But yeah, >> what time? >> 9 to1 I think at the library. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, it's uh to help your community
develop financial policies that promote sound, consistent fiscal planning and effective financial management. >> Seems like a good idea. >> Will it be recorded? Do you know? >> Uh I don't know. >> Okay. >> It's a public meeting from Isa finance
committee going. >> Do you know if it if it's if it's being posted? >> Yeah. I don't I don't know um who all is going and you know because it's during the day I'm I'd be surprised if everyone was going. I think >> yeah that's the problem. >> We might not even have quorum going just
>> so for our committee if anybody is planning to attend just let me know so I can make sure we get posted um if we're if we're going to have quorum I can't imagine we will but just in case let me know. >> Okay. Um so with that let's go to new
business and the budget. Um, so Dr. Milchesky and Phil, you can take it away. >> Great. So I think it was split up into two separate agenda items. This first one may be the quickest agenda item ever. So it's just to say in terms of FAQ, uh, if you want your voice heard as part of officially sort of the budget
process, please submit any questions to Olivia Lune uh, by January 22nd. That's at 11:59 p.m. That's after the budget hearing. That will then allow us to uh, have about a week to respond. Uh so all information all questions will be then be shared an updated budget book and an
FAQ doc on the 27th uh in advance of the school committee vote on the 29th. So again any questions just submit electronically. We're always open to conversations or calls that way but this is just a way to officially record any questions that you may have. >> Question. >> Go ahead.
>> Is there I know that that is the hearing night right? Is there a plan for us to have any further discussion that night or other than the hearing? And >> obviously the vote is the next week. But so I'm just wanting to make sure that if
there are other questions that might want to be addressed that night to plan for any adjustments if any adjustment is necessary with there another cut off time for that. >> We we can have discussions on any of the three nights including tonight. So um you know only one of them is formally a hearing but we can have discussions on
any three nights. So I I guess I would point that to you if there's anything you want answered by the 22nd. Should we the 15th? Give you a week to do homework and research. >> That would be great. That would be great. And also we can put an agenda item also like budget discussion too on the 22nd as well if we want. But yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean I I think it's probably included in the concept of the hearing. So I'm not that anxious about a separate line item for it. But um but is that fair? A week a week out. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thanks. All right.
>> All right. Um, we get the budget presentation. >> There it comes. It's coming up. >> Oh, there it is. >> Steady as we go. >> So, as U Mr. Wise alluded to, Monday night I did meet with CPAC. It's the
second time they've invited me to come in and, you know, speak with them a little bit about the budgeting process and things like that. as there was not a line coming out of the superintendent's office on Tuesday. I'm assuming it went pretty well that night as well. So, this is sort of a continuation of that or an
expansion of the presentation that I did Monday night to the special ed folks and obviously this will be the entire budget. So, as you can see, um the theme for the budget process this year is steady as we go. Um, and I think that
pretty much tells you what the budget looks like for fiscal year 27. Um, can I have the next slide? Oh, we can go. That was just my trying to show I can actually work with PowerPoint. Um, so for fiscal year 27, it is a true level service budget. Um, so what do we mean
by level service? That means most non-personnel lines have been level funded. Um, as I note, um, that's for most of the lines. Some of them have been adjusted as needed. for example, special ed transportation's been changed. Some of the um lines for
software and things like that have also been changed. Um but it's as close to level funded as we can. And we've also once again had the managers go through and adjust their budget lines to be based on their actuals so that we get the budget to be reflecting a little bit to better reflect how they are spending
their money on the personnel. I'm calling it it's a level service budget. And what do I mean by that? What I mean by that is that we will have enough staff to be able to continue to provide the services that we're currently doing. Now, I say that because the FTEES are
actually down by one. And I don't want to say that we don't it's a same number of FTEEs because it's not a slight change in terms of being down one FTE. Um but it is in terms of services to be provided. Uh the staffing is there to be able to provide all the services that
we're providing to the students as of right now. So that is what this budget represents. Continue to do what we're doing now. No cuts, no ads. So for 27, having met with the town's finance committee um and getting direction from them, um we all know that
it's a it's a tight year for 27 for all the departments across the town. So we're doing our part as well with that. Overall, the increase that the school department has received between both the operating side and the accommodated cost side is just over 2%. Um, now we were
able to get the budget to stay at a level service budget because we are able to um utilize some of our other revenue sources to make up some of the uh areas where we need the additional funds to maintain our current level of services. And that's also one of the challenges in
terms of trying to do a year-over-year comparison since right now what we're really looking at is the general fund budget and it doesn't look at the other funding sources. So depending on whether or not we are adjusting how much of a given cost center um revenue is coming
from different funding sources, it makes a year-over-year comparison sometimes a little challenging. And I'm doing that to set the stage to talk about special ed where it shows a 3.3 year-over-year decrease when it's really not a 3.3 uh year-over-year decrease. That's just out
of the general fund. And that was part of the reason why um we met with CPAC on Monday because I wanted to go through that because I knew if that got out there um that might raise lots of questions and part of the process on Monday was to go through that whole process to show folks where all the
revenue is coming from and what it really means at the end of the day. Um all right. Oh, the next page again is just to repeat that again the budget has been designed and it is capable of meeting all the things that we're doing now in terms of all our contractual obligations
to all of our bargaining units as well as all of our out of district uh placements for special ed students. Again, what we're doing now we will continue to do for fiscal year 27. Um [clears throat] so this is the recap showing the budget by cost center. Uh,
I'm not going to go through each cost center in excruciating detail tonight. There are a couple that I am going to spend just a little bit of time on. As you go down, you'll see that special education is showing that it's a year-over-year decrease of 3.3%. There are three items that are causing
that change, and I'll get to that a little bit later on. um for school facilities. School facilities looks like it's has a large increase, but again that's another situation where the offsets have changed in that um last year we anticipating have an offset of
238,000 against the um facilities expenses. This year it's down to 100,000. So that makes it look like it's a at least on the general fund side it is a a larger increase but overall the overall increase is about 4%.
Um, athletics that goes the other way. Athletics looks like it's barely hitting 1%. And by the way, I round my numbers, folks. So, you know, 0.8 I've rounded to 1%. Um, but that's because the offset that we
are using for athletics, we've increased that offset. In other words, reducing what we need to charge to the general fund because we've got a little more revenue coming in on the fee side. Um and the other one is technology. Technology is the one area where we did
have to make some adjustments to the budget. Uh we've had some um one piece of software that came off of a three-year contract that we had not budgeted for this year, but so we had a budget for next year as well. As well as
just um getting the budget to reflect what we're actually paying for some of our software. was um a little bit behind in terms of what we had budgeted for the last year. So, just trying to do some budget cleanups there. So, once you go through all that on the general fund side, it's a two, you know, it's a 2%
increase year-over-year. Um the next page just shows the breakdown into percentages and overall 27 hasn't really changed from what it's [clears throat] been for the last number of years. If you look between regular day and special education, um the the
those two cost centers in total for the last five years have varied between 89.8% and 90.3% of the overall budget. So again, we're pretty much in lines to where we've been for the last number of years. And again,
just to reiterate, this budget reflects all the investments that have been made over the last four or five years as well. Again, there are no reductions in this budget. Um, I do want to spend a minute or two on this. This is the schedule that
reconciles the FTE changes from 26 to 27. I got to change my glasses and I can't breathe with these. [laughter] So, if you look at the operating side for fiscal year 206, the FTEES are 625.8. 8 and for 27 it's 622.8 8, which
is a reduction of three. And I'll go through uh what's driving that. Then on the uh grant side, it was 30. I can't even read with my glasses on. >> 38. >> 38. >> Thank you. 38. And now we're up to 40. And then the last line is a new one which is called the special ed tuition.
Um this year we have a couple of students from other districts whose districts have sent them here to reading to uh utilize some of our special ed programs and therefore we are able to um charge those sending districts um at a
rate that uh will cover our costs and both of these students. We had two students that come in each of which required a onetoone par which we did hire and then we just charged that straight back to the sending district but they weren't in the budget for uh last year. So if you look through in terms of
regular day um regular day is an overall increase of 1.9. We have one position that was a tech integrator. Um who was it that retired? >> Kathy >> Santelli >> we had Yeah. >> H >> yeah that's Kathy Santelli.
>> Kathy Silly retired and we have moved that position over to special ed as a new inclusion specialist. Uh we had a slight FTE adjustment in terms of one of the um PE teachers and then we had three paras that had been in special ed that
were reclass up into regular day. Um it for the most part it's my understanding it just reflects um the changing needs of some of the students. So, we moved them out of special ed and that was a discussion between both special ed and um two assistant superintendents to
figure out where those three positions were going. On the special ed side, again, we have gather staff with the new inclusion specialist. We have an ad to staff on is there as well is we had a BCB a BCBA that had been budgeted down in the
idea grant. Uh, we moved that position out of the idea grant and brought it up into the general fund and we changed it from a BCBCA, yeah, a BCBA um to another inclusion specialist um and then we had the three pars that
were moved from that were moved up to regular day and then we had four pars that were moved out of the operating budget down to the idea grant. So all in all, that's what accounts for the reduction of three paras in terms of
what's being charged to the general fund. Under the grants, you'll see that we've got the uh transfer of the four paras from special ed, the operating budget down to the grant and the one reduction of the BCBCA. So that's an
increase of three being charged off to that grant. And then we have a reduction of uh one position out of Mechco. Do you want to talk about that one Tom or >> not? Nah. >> Which one? >> The uh Beco uh director position
>> the one reduction in Mecca. >> Yeah, that was given that we don't have the full-time director position. The co-director position type in we're just taking it out of the budget. We're not eliminating a role that we don't we currently have. Yeah. >> And then finally, we budgeted the two one for one pars that are needed for the
two students that are tuitioned in. Obviously, if those students do not come back, those positions will not be needed. So, you add that all up, overall, it looks like there's an increase of a 1.0 FTE. Again, it's really down one because of some of the
minor tweaks that we made within special ed and the two U one:1 Paris for the two tuition students. You know, one of the things that's always another challenge, especially with special ed, special ed changes every day. So, the needs of the students change. So, you know, we may
need to, you know, take a couple of power positions and turn it into a uh a teaching position. You know, we do what we need to do in order to meet the needs of the students, which is kind of what messes around with the FTEES. So, that is the high level reconciliation of the
uh FTEES for the 27 budget. All in all, it's a you know, steady as we go. The next one is just a pie chart. I'm not sure why I left it in there, so we take that out. Um, the next couple of slides are from the presentation that I
had with CPAC on Monday because I wanted to talk about um, no, I'm sorry. Got ahead myself. Let's look at the offsets. Sorry. All right. So, here are our offsets for
27. If you look at 26, we had uh, offsets of about 2.2 million and we're budgeting uh, 2.5 almost 2.6 6 million for 27. Um there are some changes on them. For example, athletics are up
about 30,000 more that we're using out of athletics. Um full day kindergarten, uh we are finally using up the remaining balance in our full day kindergarten. So after 27, that account will be wiped out to zero. Um special education tuition,
that's a new one. So it's a new revenue source. And school choice as well. Um, one of the things that, you know, I'm trying to show here is that we are working very hard to identify new revenue sources wherever we can to help
bring in more funding to the district. If you look at school choice up until, as you all know, up through fiscal year 22, um, Reading was never in the school choice program for accepting. So, the first year that we were in 23, there were eight students. In 24, there was
25. Last year, there were 50. And this year there's 79. I think we're shooting for a goal of um I think around 100 for next year. And I think that's about the max where we think we're comfortable in terms of what
we can handle. So again, that's another revenue source that, you know, four years ago the district didn't have. So that makes up for some of the other changes. um the school lunch program. We thought we'd be able to charge off some of our paras who are working in the
cafeterias at lunchtime, but the revenue did not support that for last year. So um we eliminated that in terms of the 27 budget because I don't um see um I'm not sure whether or not we can support that in 27. So we've just removed it in terms
of our plans for next year. Um the next page shows you the offsets by cost center. So, this is what causes some of the difficulties in doing a year-over-year comparisons. So, for example, if you
look at special ed, special ed, we're looking at offsetting $830,000 of our expenses with other fund other um funding sources. For this year's budget, it was 590,000. So that's a difference of 240,000 more which is lowering what
it looks like we're spending out of the general fund. It's the same thing in regular day. U last year regular day um we charged off 800,000 and this year we are charging off a million to that. Um, so
again, I'm just trying to reiterate trying to do the year-over-year comparisons. They're not always true apples to apples, especially when I talked to the folks on at CPAC Monday night, I was calling it more like an apples to a pair comparison because of some of the changes that were driving
that those numbers down. Uh, grants are pretty much unchanged. Um, unfortunately, the MECO grant hasn't really moved all that much and that continues to be a challenge. um IDA title one and our entitlement grants are
pretty much flat year-over-year and that's what we will we are anticipating for 27 as well. Um I don't given all of the um activities down in Washington. I don't think that at least the entitlement grants are in that much
danger. You know how they get handled and how they get managed that may change but the grants themselves are going to I think continue to be there. So, we got that >> now questions >> on to what I did for CPAC the other night.
>> Phil, can we just pause for a question? >> Yeah, Phil, sorry. I don't know if I mean you're on a roll, so I don't mean didn't mean to interrupt, but >> the school choice one jumps off the page, >> right? Um, is there an, you know, an adjustment or accounting of of that? And
further on, I there probably is, but what was the reserve or what was the balance? What are we expecting the income for next year to be? And are we going to spend it all down with that 900,000 or is there still going to be an expected balance carrying forward >> for 27? Given the way the budget is built, that uh balance will be zero at
the end of 27. >> There will be no carryover. >> This is assuming how many additional school choice children for next year? >> 21. >> 20. >> Yeah. 2021. >> 21. >> So this is assuming something we haven't voted on yet. >> Correct. >> Um Okay.
>> Can I ask a clarifying question? It is this essentially how we're making up the deficit between what Fincom approved for us and what it would cost otherwise. >> It is one of the funding sources that we're using. Yes. >> Okay. >> And it's the only one where we're really
digging into what I will call the balance. The other ones we're still, you know, we're using them the way we've always been using them in terms of leaving a balance at the end of the year. Obviously the full day kindergarten, you know, is wiped out, but we anticipated that, you know, would have been gone before this year, right?
>> So, we've been able to stretch that out. >> The only thing I'll share for people who maybe haven't been following as closely along with this, too, is just why that number looks so big is we've been using school choice funds on a one-year lag. So, what we're proposing sort of in FY27 is using the funds from that we're receiving this year in addition to the
funds that we receive next year on a monthly basis as well. So you're really using two years of fun or potentially using two years of school choice funds within that one fiscal year. So uh just want to make sure to clarify a little bit of that for those who maybe haven't followed along. >> So doesn't that create a cliff for us in 28? >> That's where I was going to go with this
immediately is exactly that. Yep. It's not sustainable. >> Yeah. Well, the the other thing that we've done is we have budgeted in here about 200 a little over $200,000 in salary savings, right? which we think is a pretty conservative estimate of what things may come, which if that number
comes in higher, which it has over the last couple of years, that would allow us to not have to be able to have to take as much sort of from school choice, right, in in the way that we have proposed right here. With that said, to balance the budget, this felt like the best strategy in front of us to be able
to to do that. Can I ask? So, this is presuming we we support school choice for another year, which I understand that the betting on that. Um, but
>> you're saying that to go up to around 100 though would would potentially be our our max. Like, you don't see it necessarily continuing to have room to add. So, not only would we be spending it down, but it's not gonna >> grow.
>> The reason why we had 21 was because Olivia has already received 21 families reach out saying they are inquiring about school choice for next year and expressing interest. We've had a pretty significant demand over the last couple of years. We have self-imposed that cap.
I think we could go higher. We've actually, if you look back the last couple years, we've we've, you know, we have some room. We just didn't feel like that was the right thing for us to do in those moments, too. So, I don't think there's any reason we couldn't go higher if the committee were to want to go higher. Um, there are some spots where
we have some space. I >> I'm not I'm not hearing anybody question the revenue projection. I I think it's the cliff that's the concern >> because if we're using essentially two years of school choice revenue in one year and we'd almost have to double
year-over-year. Yes. >> In 28 to offset that cliff, right? or or at least one and a half to get somewhere closer. >> It's not as high, >> but obviously it depends on where the budget is for the next year as well, [clears throat] right? >> I would say Sean, that's true. If the
projection of only about $200,000 in salary savings holds, right? Because if the salary savings, which look back the last couple of years is significantly higher, then that's we, you know, we obviously don't have to go as high on using, you know, school choice funds that we receive in FY27, if that makes
sense. Makes sense. It's just a bit of a high stakes gamble. >> It is what it is from a budget perspective right now. Otherwise, we have to fill the hole. >> This this is worst case scenario. The way I look at it, you know, and in now
my two years that I've been here, we haven't had to utilize all of the amounts that we've had actually put into the budget in any given year to close out the books. So, is it a risk? Yes, like any risk. But it's the only risk I
see in terms of this budget in terms of the the uh revenue side. So it's about a $400,000 problem potentially for 28. Can I ask another question while we're on this set of the topics? Moving on to school lunch program. We're going to zero
according to what I'm seeing here. Right. Recommended offset is from 273,000 to zero. >> Yeah. We're not we're not going to We thought we'd be able to again charge off some of our power expenses to the food service program, but the revenue doesn't
support it. So, we've didn't do it. >> So, our our food services staff is still going to be paid out of the revolving fund, but we won't be able to have any other supports to pay for any other staff as a result of it. >> Okay. and >> which just means they'll continue to be paid out of the >> out [clears throat] of the operating
>> out of the operating operating >> the food service will continue to be self-funding based on >> the results that we had a couple of years ago it looked like that u >> we had a pretty good profit margin but it turns out digging a little deeper into the numbers um it was more of an
accounting problem where revenues got booked in the wrong year >> which gave us a misleading result for one of the years. Okay, one more question as I go through this. Earlier in the conversation when we were going through the differences for school facilities, you mentioned it's because
we're reducing the offset. Um, but I'm not seeing that offset reduction. What am I missing? like it looks >> the offset budgeted for school facilities was 238,000 for this year
>> and then for 27 it's been reduced down to 100,000 and that's part of we were going to charge off also part of the facilities expenses to um the school lunch program. >> So it's part of the school lunch program loss.
>> Yep. That's why if you go back and look at last year's um facilities looked strange because it looked like it was a reduction in its year-over-year because we had increased the amount of the offset. So now we're just bringing it back to what it has historically been. >> Okay.
>> Dr. Cor >> Jeffrey Cormro I I'm looking at on the offset question specifically the regular day other expenses line which shows a negative expense of $200 some thousand because that school choice offset is so large that it overwhelms all the
expenses that are being spent and in fact it looks like we're generating money in the other expenses category. just it just hurts my brain to see it that way. And it it seems like I mean sure the school choice offset should be used to fund teachers as well as
supplies, right? So it seems like maybe some of that offset should be like recategorized in how it's >> shown on the budget. >> Historically, that offset has always been used to reduce down the supply line. Um, we had some discussions, uh, both Kate
and I had some discussions as to whether or not we wanted to break it up for this year, but we decided just to leave it where it is for the time being because that's where it's always been budgeted because what I get because what I'm concerned with overall, Dr. Corin, is that the bottom line is covered. So, yes, it looks a little strange and
perhaps we could have done a little better job of splitting it out. You're right. And taken part of that and moved it up to the salary line. Yeah, maybe we'll do that for the final version. >> Yeah, >> thanks, Phil. Appreciate it.
>> Okay. All right. So now I I wanted just to spend a couple minutes on the special ed program because as I said to them, I call it the rest of the story and trying to make the folks in CPAC understand that the budget that we're talking about
here is a general fund. It doesn't cover all the revenue for what's coming in for the different programs for I for the different cost centers. in that the the percentages of where the funding is coming from tends to vary year-over-year depending on what's going on. So, can
you go Yeah, skip that one. So, this is one that I put together that shows um actual expenses for special ed by funding source. So, purple uh was a general fund, gray is was that grants?
>> No, it's Yeah, grants. And then the orange is um circuit breaker. So if you look at it historically, you know, around 80 Well, actually, we go to the next one. It shows it better. So this one just shows you the spend broken down
by on a percentage basis. So it's been historically somewhere in the 80 to 85% of special ed um expenses are funded out of the general fund or the operating budget and that the remainder comes out of both circuit breaker as well as um
revolving account or grants. So if we look at special ed for 27, we if we start with the 3.3, if we adjust that to make it be budgeted the same way we budgeted 26, there's a couple of changes that we'd
have to make. One, excuse me, um circuit breaker, we budgeted this year at 1.9 million and it's going up to 2.6 million next year. And that's again that's because of um the increase in funding for special ed transportation as well as
uh some of the increasing costs of our out of district students. So that was about a 600 odd thousand change. Um that we had three positions that we had transferred out. So that's about $75,000. And I'm missing my third piece. Uh oh,
it's not grants. Oh, and then it's the offsets again. we're offsetting an additional 240 odd thousand um from other funding sources. So if you add that all up, we've lowered
the 27 number as if we compared the 26 by almost a million dollars. So you'd have to So what I'm trying to say is if we upped 27 by a million, that would be a fair comparison in terms of what's being funded out of the general fund and that would actually show an increase. If
you go through the math and all the funding sources, even with the um other reductions, we are special ed is up year-over-year. Oh, it's about 4%.
You know, but part of my challenge here is that we don't or haven't historically shown the budget by all the funding sources by a cost center. you know, we show the cost centers how they're being funded from the general fund, which is
what, you know, town meeting votes on, and then we put down another section all our other funding sources, but we don't really identify well which cost center they're going to. And so, I'm going to put that on my list of something that I
want to change for 28 so it's clear for people to see it. And also because [snorts] we use offsets, you know, it's it's just funky the way it all works. And unless you're a numbers weenie like myself, you can get lost in it and then just you you just want to run out of the
room screaming trying to understand what it is that the accountants are trying to do. So a lot of it's just the accounting magic that we're doing. But it does, you know, if you're not an accountant, it gets a little it's a little hard to follow. And so I'm trying to work on making that path a little easier to
follow. So again, this was part of my presentation to CPAC and nobody's come in to tar and feather anyone yet. So I think it did go pretty well. Um and then finally in terms of the budget, it's just the capital plan. Uh a
couple of things we had on here the last couple years some items for food services. Um all those were paid for out of the food service um monies. Uh we got the new van for food service. We've gotten some new ovens and some other capital items through. So, we've taken
off any of the food service um capital items obviously. Um we've got that big one called the new school, but that's, you know, not showing up on here. Um and one thing I forgot to mention a little bit earlier on in terms of new revenue sources and the superintendent reminded me of this.
We got um one of the earmarks in the budget for 75,000 so we could buy a specialed handicap van. Uh we're getting ready to place that order probably early next week and that again will then give us another advantage in terms of being able to make some of our programs
perhaps a little more um attractive to other districts because now we'll have a van that we can actually transport students around in. So >> I just a real quick question on that because a town former town meeting member used to give me a hard time about our our buses that we had and how the accessibility. Will this van have the
capability of wheelchair ramping? >> Yes, it will have the capability to carry one wheelchair student >> to drop down and pick up appropriately. >> Yeah, it will it come it will be out of the back. >> Okay. >> And so and also still be able to carry I think another six students if there's a
wheelchair. If there's no wheelchair, I think we can carry nine. >> So, >> and a little bit more context for those who are following along at home and maybe interested you. This was we received a $75,000 earmark from the state uh which was for to purchase this type of van uh specifically designated
for our lift program. So 18 to 22 year old program. The goal of the program right now is obviously there's there's inschool curriculum and programming but also a core part of the program is getting our students out into the community for job and community- based opportunities. Right now there's a van
that's shared between multiple sort of groups within the school and that just creates challenges in getting our students out as consistently or as frequently maybe as we would like to. This opens the doors for this being sort of a core part of our program. Right now our challenges are not finding community partners. We have some amazing community
partners are eager to support our students. We have a great pro uh partnership with Salem State and the Macy program. So, this is really going to open doors for our current students, but we think also, again, as Phil was sharing, an opportunity for us to bring more students in from neighboring districts into the program. This is something that separates us that's
really unique from what we see as some of the other uh districts that have this type of programming as well. So, um other than that, the only other change is that um technology projects um starting next year, we're going up from
150,000 to 250,000 in terms of capital being allocated, which will be very nice in order to keep our infrastructure up and going on the IT side. Um other than that, I mean, as I said, it's steady as we go. you know, nothing
major, no big, you mean no changes. >> Can I share one thing on the technology piece, too? That's also the we're talking about sort of, you know, uh, you know, sustainability. We know how we've used end ofear funds over the last couple years for tech renewal. I think
adding $100,000 for, you know, on the capital plan for technology is it going to be allow us to be more creative with sort of how we're approaching sort of endofear funds and allocations and things like that. So it does free us up a little bit more than maybe where we have been over the last couple of years.
Technically, we can't use these funds for the purchase of new devices, but it'll gives us some more flexibility within the technology budget to be able to make sure that we can purchase what we need at the end of the year and have some more flexibility sort of earlier on.
>> Devices are not considered capital items. Haven't been for a long time. Well, that's all I have for 27 right now. Again, as superintendent said, if you have questions, you know, please get them into Olivia. That way, we can gather them all together and get some
answers out to everybody. Um, and that way everyone will see the the same answer and I won't, you know, have to have my answers corrected by three other people. So, want to make sure we get that done correctly. Um, and we will make that change in terms of the offset for uh regular day. So,
We'll get rid of that because you I agree it it looked a little little strange. >> So, we'll fix that and and I do appreciate your uh comments from the uh going through for us. That was very helpful. Thank you.
>> Um so, just an observation, not not a comment on the budget itself really. Um, but I I would say it's a level services budget, but we got a little bit of help from circuit breaker and we we are giving ourselves some help with sort of
two years of school choice. And I get that there's a an offset in the you know conservative side on the um you know retirement savings and whatnot, but um I sort of view this as the first year that the budget the budget at the town level actually doesn't support level services.
we had to have a few things, you know, that we were able to sort of have break in our favor to be able to support level services if we're being sort of honest with where we are. So, um I don't know maybe just an observation for our friend from the fincom and anybody from the select board who might
be watching that this is a to me a clear harbinger of what FY28 looks like. Yeah, I mean I think the other thing if we talk about commentary um we sort of buried the lead in the fact that the revol the special education um
accommodated cost is greatly decreased. And the only reason and only way that that accommodated cost is greatly decreased is because of the work this this team has done to keep our students in district and save a lot of out of district spend. Right. Um, so we've
proven over time that is much more financially sustainable. Um, and we have a pretty large drop. Um, historically that goes up 4% every year and this year it's going down 7 something%. Right. Um, so I think there's there's something there to talk about as well in
terms of the work that this group has done over the last, you know, five years to to manage and steward and Sean, like we've talked about five years ago, invest to save, right? A lot of our investments have led to some of those savings. So, I think that's one thing we should make sure we trump it a little bit more than we have um as we go
through this. And I would also say that, you know, it's even with this, we're still having we still have a free full day kindergarten or taxpayer funded full day kindergarten, whatever you want to say from a
>> universal day kindergarten. Say yeah. >> Um and but b we haven't touched the special education reserve fund yet. >> Correct. >> Right. um which is what a little north of a million at this point in time if I recall correctly. >> No, it's 6550 odd, thousand.
>> Okay, my recollection is wrong then. So, I got to go back and see why I thought it was a higher number. But even so, worst case scenario, if it if we needed to, we still had something else to tap into next year. And that could be another bridge for one more year if we needed it to be um you know, in 28 uh as
necessary. Um, I'm really don't like the fact that we're using all of our reserve, quote unquote, when it comes to school choice. So, I'm a little nervous about that, but at the same time, I know it's been hard to fit the square peg in
the round hole. Uh, so I appreciate all the work and effort to get where we are. >> Any other questions for tonight or discussion? All right. Can I just give a thank you to behind you saw Phil tonight, but it's also Kate Finnegan behind on the scenes just does incredible work. The the two
as the team, our assistant business manager just together to put all this work uh in to get us into a good spot. So, thank huge thanks to uh to Kate as well. Even though she's not here, she's definitely her work's reflected here. Thank you. >> And also to Olivia for actually putting the whole budget book together because I
I can't do that to save her life. [laughter] >> She is a wizard. >> Yeah. Okay. Um so we will revisit this in two weeks and then again in three weeks but uh we'll call it there for tonight. Um so let's move to old business and um
FY27 fees particularly around the area of transportation. >> Dr. Chess here. So I think just to revisit the conversation uh last school committee meeting we had recommended an increase of $25 for one rider that brought up the fee up to $500. An
increase of $50 for two riders that would bring up to $900. and then keeping the three rider cap at 1,200. Uh the committee had asked for a little bit more information about sort of ridership breakdown by level and then also breakdown by how many families had one,
two or three riders as well. So that information is all in the packet. So we wanted to revisit the conversation tonight seeking vote and approval or before that any discussion or around those the recommendation. >> Why don't we u we'll just start with a motion.
uh move to approve um the transportation fee rates for fiscal year 27. >> And is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any questions or discussion? >> I'll just say I mean, you know, if we were starting over, my preference would
be to have a first writer rate and then a rate per additional writer, you know, with with some cap on it. um versus having the third writer be 300, you know, $300. But for six families, I'm not that anxious about changing it
either. So, I'm good for tonight. >> I really appreciate getting those numbers because initially [clears throat] the 1,200 just like did not sit well with me. But I'm I'm not >> interested in overt taxing six families in the district either. So,
>> for $600 in revenue. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. Anything else? Sarah, I need I see you shaking your head. No. All right. So, we'll go to the vote. Sarah, I'll start with you. Can't hear you if you're talking. >> Still can't hear you. >> I can see your mouth.
>> I can see your mouth. >> She mouths. Yes. >> Can you give us a thumbs up so we can [laughter] There we go. There's a yes. Erin, >> yes. Uh Tom, >> yes. >> Carla, >> yes. >> And Laura, >> yes. >> And Sean, yes. >> Um, okay. Thanks, Phil. I think you're off the hook. >> Thank you, Phil. [snorts]
>> Um, let's move to the school calendar. Dr. Milchesky, any commentary on this one? >> Great. So, in your packet, you'll see uh some of the follow-ups from questions that were recommendations that were proposed at the January 8th meeting. Um, so I think just the biggest one to flag
is just actually I'll flag two. One, election day. did discuss that at length with Laura Jim. Again, uh Laura's stance I think is similar to ours. Laura believes that we can do things safely and efficiently uh every year besides a presidential election. So just to flag that for sort of that's perspective. I
agree. Uh second thing is we we had a lot of conversations internally and with the union around the start date. uh it is the recommendation of the union uh and also therefore our administration is to continue with what's in the teachers union contract which is starting no earlier than one week before uh before
Labor Day. So therefore you'll see the uh some of the other pieces that were uh brought up during the January 8th meeting and then also the uh corresponding draft calendar as well. >> Uh start with a motion. Yeah. I move to
approve updates to the 2026 2027 school calendar. >> Before we take that, have we have we approved anything yet or did we table it last time? >> We tabled it. So, you're >> So, we'll just take out the word updates. >> You want to reoffer?
>> Move to approve the 2026 2027 school calendar. >> Thank you. Second. >> Seconded by Aaron. Um, any discussion? I say I appreciate you taking all that back. I I don't I don't think I I definitely didn't realize that the language in the contract was tied to
Labor Day. I thought it was tied to a like a date on the calendar. So, um makes perfect sense. So, I think, you know, I would say next time we have a union negotiation, it might be worth thinking about whether we want more flexibility there. But, um for now, I'm I'm good with this. So,
um okay. Is there uh any further discussion? >> Clarifying question please. >> As a member of the policy subcommittee >> um >> I assume we will want to have that conversation
soon so that anything can be incorporated into the calendar. Is that accurate? >> The conversation around start date or the conversation around the religious holiday? >> Uh religious holidays was getting bumped down to the policy subcommittee. Correct. That's Yeah, that's how I read
it. So, which is good. I think, you know, I think it's something that should be revisited. Um, but means we have to >> we have that was not in my update from earlier today. So, I'll redo my update from earlier today. We have received
feedback from the district on the set of policies that I set them before. This was not one of them. We can add to it. I now need to get legal review of those policies and then we can have a series of meetings through January, February, March. >> Okay. >> Expect expect a request.
>> All right. You and me. [laughter] >> Okay. Uh any further discussion? [snorts] >> Okay. Let's move to the vote. Um Sarah, I'll start with you. >> I'm seeing a thumbs up, so we'll take that as a yes. Uh I hope that's legal and valid. Aaron, [laughter] >> yes.
>> Tom, >> yes. Carla, >> yes. >> Laura, >> yes. >> And Sean, yes. Okay. All right. So, that brings us to our final order of business, I believe, which is the superintendent um some hopefully some votes we can take tonight. So, um I
hopefully everyone had a chance to read the memo. I apologize it was a late update. Um we've been trying to sort of work this through with MASC in real time. Um, and this has gotten even stickier, I would say, since we got this, um, uh, since the memo that was included in the packet. Um, MASC's
initial proposal for the timeline had us finishing the search and making an offer in the like the May 18th to 22nd time frame. Um, which we think is probably a non-starter. Um, it's it's just too late. You know, it's just we'd be behind
every other district that's doing a search. um you know, you're bet you're you're betting on candidates being willing to walk away from their current district, you know, 30 days before just over 30 days before the start of the school year. Um it's just a really tough, you know, and even contractually,
we know many candidates will have 60 or 90day notification periods. And so, you know, we may offer somebody who phys who legally can't start until well into July or even August. And so, um we think that's sort of a non-starter. The catch is um that MASC is not able to commit to
supporting a timeline that is faster or as fast as we'd want to go. Um I think as fast as we'd want to go would have us completing uh the search and being in a position to make an offer prior to the election. Um no seats are guaranteed and we don't want to find ourselves in a
position where we have, you know, some people participating in the interviews and then other people having to decide who to make an offer to. Um, so I, you know, I really think our bogey is is prior to the um to the upcoming election. Um, so you know, I we've we've
been going back and forth with Alicia Malin at the MASC. Um, I can't remember if I mentioned this, but Dorothy Presser is retired from MASC, so we have both a new field rep and a person who will be supporting who would be supporting the search in Alicia Min. um you know she's
got a great background to served on multiple school committees you know knows all the stuff but just from an availability perspective has another search that's in line in front of us and can't commit to the aggressive timeline that we would want to host here so we have a few options um [clears throat] one is we could move
forward with MASC take as much help as we can get and sort of fill in the gaps with you know our time my time Michelle Olivia you know Dr. Dr. Milichesky and others from the district. Um, that's certainly one path forward. Another path forward is that we
opt not to contract with MASC. There is a set of free services they will provide to us as a result of us being MASC members. That wouldn't require us to spend 11,000 plus and and do, you know, kind of have them formally lead our search. And again, we would have to lean
into um we being the district collectively and the school committee collectively would have to lean into taking on some of the things that MASC might otherwise do for us. Um >> can you elaborate? >> I will in just a minute. Let me run through the options generally and then I'll I'll talk about some of the considerations. I think um so that's one
option. A third option would be we could revisit working with NZDC. Um I don't know at this point whether they could commit to supporting the timeline that we want and you know they were I think about $4,000 more expensive than MASC for generally the same scope. Um and
then uh was there a fourth option? Maybe it was just the three options. Um >> what about a fourth option of asking Dorothy to come off the bench for a couple months? >> That is interesting. It's an option. >> It's an ask whether she can she can say
no. Yeah, it's an No, for sure it's an option. Maybe >> even if it even if it means it's 13 or 15,000 instead of 11,000, >> it's still probably going to be cheaper than NZDIC if I recall what NZDIC char was going to charge us last night. >> Was around 15 15 and change I think. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Um
>> um yeah. No, that's an option as well. Um so let me I'll lay out some of the some of the considerations and then you know open it up for for discussion here. Um, I think candidly some of MASC's approaches and NASDAQ's approaches for that matter are a little bit dated. Um,
things like creating a fullcolor brochure that gets physically mailed to a random a list of folks in their contact book doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Um, we we could have I'm going to volunteer him. I'm hope he's okay with that. I suspect we could get Chris Haley to build us a website, you know, this
weekend. Uh that would be sort of the community profile, you know, the the the modern version of the community profile. Um I don't know if he's maybe he's watching, but probably not. Um I'm sure I'm sure this will get back to him. I might get a text [laughter] or something. >> If Chris can't do it, I'm fairly
confident with Squarespace. We could we could figure it out. So the point is there are some things that we could modernize that I almost would prefer to sort of um you know, insource, if you will. Um so that that's you know, that's one thing to think about. Uh, another thing to think about is there are some things in the timeline that you know
that's here in the packet that I think we probably could opt to forego. Um, for instance, the online survey. I don't know that it added a ton for us last time. I think the focus groups are more important. Um, the survey has quite a tale to it in terms of you got to develop it and approve it and get it fielded and wait for the results and
then there's some analysis and then you have to review it. So, you know, I think there are some things that we could take out of the process that probably wouldn't impact our results meaningfully. Um, you know, so that's another consideration. Tom, I like your idea of con, you know, thinking about Dorothy. Um, another thing that came up
is, um, I asked Colby, you know, our legal team, our council, to take a look at the contract. And one of the things that MASC's contract explicitly uh, calls out is they sort of disclaim any responsibility for legal compliance. Um,
and it's our responsibility to make sure that our search is fully compliant legally. Um, which you know, I understand why that's their their approach to it, but it puts us in a position where we'd be leaning on Kobe and her team. Um, so that's another option is we could lean on Kobe and her team to support some of the things that
we otherwise would get supported by MAC. Um, particularly around the orientation for the screening committee to make sure that, you know, they ask questions that are above board and all that sort of thing. Um, so there are, you know, I think there are there's certainly a path to us putting this together in a way
that leans on the the free support that we can get MASC allows us to insource a lot of things that we probably, you know, would be interested in modernizing anyway and allows us to move on the timeline that we probably need to move on, which really has us posted in February. Um, and closing, you know,
closing the posting by the end of February is probably the timeline we need to be on. So, let me I'll pause there um and open open it up for any questions or thoughts. There are some things in the in the um you know the list of five bullets that I have here that I would
like to get a vote on this evening independent of which path we take. But um let's talk about the path forward first. >> So just to clarify the services are not offered all cart. You either hire them as a package or
>> so. Yeah. So they they have two they have two options. one is they run your search, right? And there's still lots of stuff that the district has to do. We have to provide a lot of information. We obviously have to provide places to hold focus groups and all those sorts of things. >> Um, but they do a lot of the scheduling,
a lot of the comm, you know, a lot of the outreach to candidates, a lot of the um >> coordination of calendars, you know, a lot of that sort of stuff. They do um production of any advertising materials you might do, right? So, they're they're doing a lot of things for you in that case.
>> Okay. Um there's another version which is they provide us with what they call no fee technical services uh or technical assistance um where they do things like posting the role on the MASC website distributing our vacancy to other to MASS equivalents in other
states distributing their search m our search materials to their recruitment database. We would pay postage costs in that case. So we'd have to figure out what that looks like if we're doing more of a digital recruitment package. Um, they can provide us with graphic design assistance. Um, they can help us with
recommendations for any paid advertising we might want to do. They can they'll actually conduct the orientation of the screening committee, which is which is an important one, right? Because there's some kind of key legal things that you need to >> check off there. Um, they can help us develop questions for candidates at various stages. So there, you know,
there are lots of things that they will do for us because we are members of MASC. They're independent >> are separate from the um contracted package. >> Now again, whether or not they can sort of fully support all that >> on the timeline that we're going to be
looking for maybe maybe in question, but >> but other than me, everyone on the committee has been through this process. >> Four of us. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think Sarah came in the year after, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Not only has that, but Aaron and I were on the screening committee. Okay.
>> I have all the materials. Every single one of the materials from the last time we did this. >> The questions. >> I have the questions. I have I have everything. >> Maybe >> I have everything from from there. >> Like maybe some of the services if you're saying you want to modernize it anyway that some of those services
>> I have the old flyer necessary, >> right? Which we could take and adjust >> digitize. Yeah. >> Digitize appropriately. I I mean I have it all. >> And you know in talking to Dr. Dr. Milichesky, you know, Olivia is certainly capable and and available to support us administratively. Michelle is
an HR guru as we know and is is available and interested, you know, available and willing to support um you know, some of the sort of HR strategies, you know, stuff associated with this. Um so I, you know, I have every confidence that we could do it, you know, we could
do it with MASC support versus having a vendor do it for us. Um but it's, you know, it's a big decision. So, >> I I personally think the top priority is is getting the best possible candidate who we can for the district. And if that
means putting in more leg work, then I'll put in more leg work. But, um, I'm not comfortable having a stretched out timeline and and losing candidates for that. Um, I think that we need to capitalize on the fact that four of us
are are familiar, very familiar with the process. Um, I think there's a lot of published materials now between our community report, between what, you know, the schools put together. Like, I think there's a lot that, you know,
probably with Olivia's help, we could string together. Um, I agree. I don't think we need to necessarily be using snail mail. Um, so my vote would be to speed things up even
if it means taking on more. >> I agree. >> I have found that there's so much interest from everybody who I come in contact with, and I'm sure everybody's the same. We could come up with a little
cheat sheet and say, "Here you go. if if you know of anybody who you know if you know of people because everybody has a connection and this is our website this is you know just to kind of lead them to the right place too is a another way >> the one thing I will say is [snorts] you
know while the mailing I agree is a little out of date they do have a pretty exhaustive network now it sounds like we can connect into most of that with the technical services so >> I'm a fan of that I do think as well though that um I I wanted. So, I'm on the same page
with there and I want to go as fast as we can. I I agree with your timing that it has to be before the election. Um 100% on that same page. Um we have most of the materials. The one thing I think that like Dorothy did for us that we're going to have to figure out who does and it might even be that
we have to designate our own chair of the of the search committee because that's going to be a big part of it. We did not do that last time somewhat on purpose because there was some internal political struggle at the time which we don't really have right now. um you know that that Dorothy and Tom
you can probably speak to it really worked a lot with the candidates behind the scenes right in terms of okay well maybe not so tell me but the perception we had was that she would reach the candidates and and have them okay I need you to coordinate this I need you to do this this is the interview schedules that you can sign up for this is the
time you're going to be here this is what you should expect um that the chair presumably the search committee is going to have to do um if we decide to not contract with body. Um Dorothy also took all the minutes for the executive sessions and the regular sessions and she did the submissions of those. So if
we want to make sure we have Olivia or somebody else available that would probably offload something from the chair from a logistics perspective um or because you can't really record you can't record the executive sessions, >> right? Um so that's just something to be aware of um as we go through it. But
everything I think we can do most of this ourselves and do most of it really quickly ourselves. I'm actually somewhat saying I'm not even sure we need a focus group. I think we know pretty well where we are as a district. There might be maybe a smaller set. Maybe we want one
or two. But I don't really maybe maybe I'm biased and I'm sure I am because I'm so connected into this group as it is right now. But I I feel like we're so in such a good order from the the district perspective that we're not reorienting like we were 5 years ago. uh
that last year, five years ago, was very much a you know, this district needs to fundamentally do a 180 and shift where it's going and its focus. We're not in that space right now. So, I my perception is that the focus groups are going to be like, yeah, everything's
going great, right? And so maybe that perception is not right, but I I just have a a little bit of a let's even tighten that up if we can. >> My um I want to push back on that a little bit. I think there are two things that have to be true or you know two
things that are like my my top two objectives. One is get the best candidates we can applying for this role, right? Two is make sure that we have buy in from all the right stakeholder groups on the person we select ultimately. >> I agree >> and I I think the focus groups help with that quite a bit. Um I think the focus
groups help make sure that people feel like they were heard, their priorities were reflected. we can tailor and tweak the questions that we ask, you know, both in the screening committee and at the, you know, at the uh final interview phase um to ensure that those things are addressed. I think that's really helpful from a stakeholder buyin perspective. I
agree with you. We probably could slim it down. I literally just emulated the ones that we had scheduled last time, which you know, some of them were pretty lightly attended if I remember correctly. So, we probably could do some collapsing of those, but um but um you know, I I think we'd still and I I also
know there's a lot of staff that want to be involved and want to be heard and and there's not going to be enough seats for them all, right? So, I think having having some focus groups for for certain for certain groups in particular, I think, is is still pretty important >> and probably not that difficult to schedule.
>> Yeah, I think if we collapsed any, we could we could probably condense some of the parent groups because Yeah. Not I would love for hundreds of people to chime in and and tell us what really matters to them, but even five years ago when we were in an
incredibly different place, we didn't those weren't well attended. >> Yeah. >> Um so I do think there will be interest in being on the screening committee and you know we'll have to think carefully about that makeup and how to do it in a in a fair and balanced way. But um
but I agree like that the the staff need to need to have the focus groups for sure and at least some that are open to community and parents and I can't remember did students show up to
the student I don't really remember I don't remember that one >> I don't remember >> I might have the notes from those I can go back and check that. >> Yeah. Also, like town staff, if if we're going to have some representative town
staff on the screening committee, >> how many town staff do we think have strong opinions for a focus group? >> Yeah, I don't >> I'm not trying to minimize, but I they don't, you know, have as much. >> I tried to figure out how well attended
these were, and I couldn't find it. I couldn't find it anywhere in my email history or anything like that. So, >> um, I'm open. I'm certainly open to collapsing, you know, some of these. We could we could um, you know, invite town staff to the open
community forum that probably will be, you know, lightly attended. We could potentially combine students, you know, with that with that group as well. You know, there's I think there's a few things we could do here to slim that down. I'm not that worried about these. These are 30 minute Zooms at the end of the day. So, um, if we have one too
many, it's probably not the end of the world, but >> yeah, just a matter of making sure we can get them scheduled quickly. Yeah. Right. >> Um, they they, if I recall correctly, they were really only used for one thing, and that was the brochure. >> Yeah. >> In the grand scheme of things, they
weren't used for much more than the brochure in terms of how we were painting the town and the district and what it was and what we were looking for. It was the what were you looking for portion of the brochure that they were used for. >> Yeah, that's fair. in a very almost word cloudy way, >> right?
>> Okay. >> Yeah. So I I guess we really want the input, but we don't want it to hinder our timeline that we have to get all these scheduled either. But it looks like we could still do it
over the next few weeks basically over the next >> I think that would have to be the target is to do them all no later than the week of the 19th. The online submission
had 164 responses >> for the survey >> for the survey >> back then. >> Mhm. >> And everybody was I was say went a [laughter] heck of a lot more than 164 people had opinions. >> Yeah.
>> All right. So So what I'm hearing is, you know, it's worth reaching out to Dorothy. We'll do a Hail Mary and see if she's available. Um, it'd be great to It'd be great to have somebody who can run point who's who's done this before if she can she's available and can meet our timeline and is interested since she
retired like two weeks ago. She may not [laughter] she may not be ready to jump back in just yet. Um, but you know, we can we can kick the tires there. >> It's her last harrah. >> Yeah. >> Look how pleasant we are. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I I I emailed her. >> We're more pleasant than when she was last year. [laughter] She had to she had
to come before that to teach me but teach us how to be uh cordial in meeting. >> Great job, Dorothy. [laughter] Um I think I reached out to her on our meeting was on the 18th in December. [clears throat] I think I reached out to
her the morning of the 19th and it was the email I was already getting email saying I've retired as of the end of December. So an automatic bounce back. So >> all right. >> So she's very freshly retired. So, I'm not going to hold my breath, but it's worth it's worth kicking the tires on that. But otherwise, I'm hearing
generally we're comfortable [snorts] kind of running the show and we'll lean on MASC's technical assistance where we can. Um, okay. So, that's good. Uh, you know, I um the the other question would be, and this is one of the things that
that Alicia from MASC was asking me is, you know, do we intend to sort of have one person run point or do we want to create a subcommittee? We historically have not created a lot of subcommittees. Um, you know, I think I mentioned in the memo I'm I'm happy to be the sacrificial lamb here, but I don't want to assume
that I am either. So, um, if anybody is interested in playing an outsized role in this and wants to either subsume me or or join me, um, you're welcome to do so, but otherwise, you know, I can I I'll raise my hand, I guess, is what I'm saying to to
kind of take responsibility here. And then um you know we'll just use our our meetings uh to update update everyone and everything that's going on. And I won't rule out that we may want to have an emergency meeting here or there where we you know if I if we need approval for
something or um you know I just want opinions you know on something and I can't I can't uh violate OML but um you know generally speaking we'll try to keep all that in our existing meetings as much as possible. I mean, I think in in your role in chair, I think it makes perfect little
sense for you to logically play that role. Um, you know, Chuck did that as well, as you noted before. Uh, I think the question you're going to have to ask yourself is, does that mean you want to be on the screening committee, too, or is this just the coordination, right? And so, I think you have to answer right
now. I don't think it's neither here nor there, but it would be a lot to do both. Yeah. So, you know, especially if you're going to be, okay, the committee has said we want to talk to these five people and okay, now I got to reach out to those five people to coordinate. >> You can if two of us are on the
screening committee, right? You could you'd be the third to be in the know to a degree. >> Um, so it still doesn't violate OM at that point in time, but something to think about for you. >> Yeah. I mean, I've I've already thought about it, as you might imagine. If if any two of you are interested and willing to be on the screening committee, I'd be happy to just play the
sort of coordination role. Um if there's a if there's a gap and we need a second person then I'll I'll do that as well. So um okay so the timeline as you see it is generally
representative. We need to pull it in by about a week to to get in front of the I think it's about a week to get in front of the election. So >> weeks >> is it or is it it's a week and a half more than >> Yeah. >> Goes out to middle of April April 16th. So >> okay. So yeah, and the the election's on the sixth or seventh. Seventh.
>> Yeah. So, so we've got to pull it in by 10 days, give or take. Um, and probably vote on Monday night. >> Uh, before the election would be my guess. >> Um, so that'll be, you know, >> unless you can pull it into end of end of March or the week before trying. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so I'll I'll take a I'll
take a run at adjusting, you know, adjusting the calendar here. Um, knowing that we want to, you know, I think we have agreement we want to get this done before the election. Um, can we talk about the screening committee and
then if folks are interested, it actually would be helpful to know if you have availability constraints, anybody who wants to be on the screening committee as I refine this calendar. Um, so what's suggested here in the packet I is where we landed last time. It's not
what we initially proposed. It's where we landed on the actual screening committee that we ended up constituting. Two school committee members, one central office staff member, one building principal, five staff members including at least one from each level, five parents, ensuring that we have representation from each level as well
as CPAC and MECO um town manager or designate and then uh either the police chief, one of the SRO's or a design from the police department. Um, that was essentially, not essentially, that was the screening committee makeup the last time around and I think it was a good balance. I think it was probably the
right one. Um, but I'm open to suggestions or revisions. >> The one thing I've heard from our central office staff is a suggestion for a second principal. Dom, do you know if that still holds and if we have a second principal that's interested? >> Definitely more than two. More than one
principal interested. Okay. >> Yeah. Um, you know, that would get it to an odd number as well. Right now it's 20 and being at an odd number is usually good in case there's a tiebreaker of some sort. >> Where do you get 16?
>> 16, but yeah, it's still okay. 17. Yeah. So, my count's wrong, but my >> I I would be fine with that. I think I would just want to factor it in to the five staff so that there's, you know, again, sort of like balance from
So we have to be careful that we don't go like, oh, now we were seven staff and now no because then parents are going to have the same problem, right? So we got just have to >> Yeah. >> Um I just meant if looking holistically at the five staff and the two principles having full
representation and not having three from >> you know what I mean? If we have like if it's Sarah Marant >> then maybe you know we're not picking a teacher from >> Yeah. So that's fair. We'll have that as a consideration not numbers but look like
>> distribution across across the maximum representation of sort of all categories right you know. Yeah. Totally makes sense. >> I think however you know we're going to get a lot of interest. >> Yes. >> So how you know and some people can check off more than one box and that >> we could already fill this from people who proactively reached out.
>> Yeah. Several people reached out to me as well, but >> um I I would be willing to do it again. I enjoyed it um as intense as it was. Um but it very I'm I have some travel constraints. So I don't want to um be a
problem in that regard. So it it would depend on what the dates ultimately end up being. So, let me um let me let's gather everybody's interests and then and then we'll look at availability and go from there. >> Can I mention one more thing too? Um I
um Bob Lasher has um expressed an interest in um being on the search committee. he was on Tom's search committee and um I I like the idea that he um this person needs to really be
budget focused and I always felt like Bob was very budget focused too. So um I know we have town manager or designate um on there. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there. I think he would be a good um addition.
>> Okay. >> Um what what about others? Um interest in pending scheduling availability. >> I too would be willing to do it again if people wanted me to do again. Um I do
have some small travel but we have remote meeting opportunities so nothing that I think is blocking anything as it stands right now. I could be in San Francisco tomorrow for all I know. But at the same time, I can join a call and tell them I'm blocking a certain period of time if I need to. So, whatever needs to be done as long as we
can do it virtually as well, which we can according to our laws. So, >> I would definitely be willing to participate. >> I'm not if there's people who are, you know, really don't know and and I don't want to take someone's spot, so to speak, but
I'm absolutely willing to um be part of the search committee. Okay. Um, availability is maybe going to be the determining factor here because So, [laughter] um, so I, you know, there's it's not, you know, >> I'll be around. >> Yeah, I hear you. >> Um, Sarah, I don't know if we can get
you off of mute. Um, you could start with a thumbs up or thumbs down. We can't We cannot hear you. Did I Oh, you know what? The volume got turned down. Sorry. That's my fault. [laughter] It's not my fault. >> Can you sign? >> I'm not sure. I'm not sure how the whole
system reset halfway through. So for some reason all one shot. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Um >> I was trying to have a shorter meeting. I figured if I cut out 16 16% of the members we get out of here earlier. [laughter] >> I don't know. My schedule is a nightmare as much as I would like to participate. Okay.
>> Great. And how are you feeling with >> if if I I would love to be on it, but I'm realistic. And if I, you know, I'm happy with any of the three of you to be on it, and if something happens and we,
you know, we need me to step in, I'd be happy to. But, um, I'm good with any of the three. >> You got a lot on your plate. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um All right. So, I will gracefully bow out then and play the
sort of coordinator role. Um, and then Aaron, Tom, and Laura, when I get a sort of refreshed view of the calendar here, we'll just kind of have everybody look at calendars and um, you know, see what availability looks like and go from there. So,
okay. Um, so why don't we just for belt and suspenders, why don't we take a vote to approve the screening committee with the addition of ani with the addition of another building principal. >> Um, but otherwise as represented in the packet. So maybe you could just say so
moved. >> Do you have do you have so moved? Do you do you have all your answers to all the questions that you wanted to get answers from? >> I think so. Yeah, I think um >> seconded. We have a we have a we have a path on sort of how we're going to run
the process. We'll we'll check in with Dorothy, but otherwise probably leading it ourselves with MASC support from the technical assistance sort of no fee stuff. Um I'll play point with MASC so we can keep things moving. Um search process timeline we're going to we're
going to revise. I don't I don't know that the timeline formally requires approval, but we'll bring it back next time for a formal a formal vote anyway. Um and then um screening committee makeup. I do want to vote on that and then uh we'll close out with focus groups and we'll be good. We'll be good.
>> All right. So, >> I just have one thought on that too. So, I'm just I'm looking at that list of like one building principal and five staff and I think what's interesting is that you know what doesn't call out specifically like a central office rep like one of our assistant superintendents or it doesn't call it like a coordinator or director. >> We did have that last time. That's a
good point. >> So, I don't know if they fold into staff members. >> No, they didn't. What you say? >> CO staff member. >> Okay. So, okay. So, CEO staff, I was assuming. So, that's a co like a >> that's Jen or Sarah or Michelle or or
somebody else. >> So, like a director or a coordinator would fall under because like in my role I work really closely with our directors as well. So, that would fall under a staff member. Correct. >> Yeah. Because last time the the five staff it wasn't like all teachers. I think we'd go with are they are they sort of on you know RTA para contract or
are they >> you know on individual contracts as like central office admin. >> Okay. So you're saying it in this model someone who's a d say a director of >> so Aaron would fit co staff model co
staff member >> she would be co staff. Okay. >> See I would I would think that it would be she would be part of the five staff members >> historically. Yeah. Now, however, you know, ultimately what happened I'll just a little bit behind the scenes curtains, you know, when this when the all the
applicants came in last time as we were going through it. >> I remember your spreadsheet, >> right? We had we had a list of who they are and what roles they filled >> and they because sometimes people felt multiple roles. We had people who were staff and parents at the same time. We had, you know, so we had to, okay, well, this fills the staff position, but this
excludes that person. We want them to fill it, you know, so okay, we're going to put them in a parent role in this particular case. So, you know, we could you could we could play with that. And Sean, it's probably in your role with consultation with Carla about making sure that that is as fairly populated as possible.
>> Yeah. So my only thought on that is it does it do we like to have the one co staff member and one building or two building principles or is it better to have three non-unit leaders to give more flexibility to the screening committee if the if they would prefer or whoever's to selecting to choose a director
assistant superintendent a principal instead of an assistant superintendent and two principles I think that would I don't >> I I think that's fair I I do I do want I do think that there's value in having at least a couple of direct reports to the superintendent which you get with the building principles but not with every
every central office staff member. So maybe with that caveat that it's you know three central office staff members plus plus building principles including two direct of the superintendent, right? Because then you could then you could have theoretically
a building principal and an assistant superintendent. >> You could theoretically add an assistant principal to that then if that's the case too. >> Yeah. >> Right. depending on how the how the pool comes together. But so that gives you essentially you're saying three people, right? Two of those three must be direct reports to the superintendent
at at minimum. >> Yeah. >> But it's possible you could make three of three direct reports to the superintendent. >> And you're talking about with that one CO staff member and the one building principal adding an additional that could toggle between either of them.
Those two lines collapse into three people total with at least two of them being direct reports to the superintendent. >> Correct. >> I think that's helpful too because another role which you'll mention is a metco director which >> reports to me. >> Yeah. >> Right. But where would you fit in this structure? So I think that just to try
to think as inclusively as possible. I think give yourself a little bit more this language give yourself a little bit more flexibility than maybe the proposed language on the paper. >> Yep. That's fair. That's a good point because five years ago
>> we had >> we didn't have one at that point in time. >> We had one person, right? >> And we were in the actually recruiting Curtis at that point in time. >> We were as well. >> Yeah. So that's a really good point. >> All right. So So the the adjustment here would say two school committee members,
three central office plus non-unit leaders, at least two of which are directs to the superintendent. Five staff members including one from each level. at least one from each level, five parents including representation, etc., etc., town manager, designate, and police chief,
SRO or designate. That's the revised makeup. Anything else on that? >> That gives us 17. 17. Yeah. The only thing I I would say if you're getting bombarded with requests and inevitably people are going to be upset they
weren't chosen um is just to remind people that this is not just to but this is to get to the finalists. It's not to choose the next superintendent and then all the finalists will have, you know,
time with various cohorts and all of that will be public at that point and people can lobby all six of us, which they will. Um, so I I don't want anyone to feel like >> they're left out. they're left out or
they're not going to have a, you know, not going to be heard >> um because they didn't get picked for the screening committee. Like it's wonderful that there's interest. >> Um but >> was Chuck the bad guy last time or did he let Dorothy do it? >> No, I mean Chuck and I collectively were
the bad guy bad guys last time. >> But we actually did not have a problem so much in terms of how many people we didn't have to turn away a lot of people. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um so >> interesting. It wasn't it wasn't a massive like I said we were actually like well this per we had more staff but one of one of those staff happened to be
a parent so we were able to put that staff person into the parent list. >> We didn't have 15 staff that we had to say no to. >> Yep. >> And once people see the time commitment they >> that's part of the problem as well. People say something they're like oh I
can't do that many meetings in that short a period of time. and that that that there's a lot of self- selection that happens. >> Y >> trust the pro the process these process always works. I always feel like these are good. >> Can I say one other thing, but it's not
on the committee. Um I you wrote not all committees visit the finalist districts. Um I found that experience like significantly helpful. um
like very very enlightening. Um, so I hope that we can make that work even if we do, >> you know, I mean, last time we had to do it virtually, but that was very efficient because we didn't have to like drive to, you know, another place for a
day and made, you know, who knows? Yep. >> Not everyone's within driving distance anyway. So% >> agree with everything. >> Um, but >> yeah, >> those were great. >> I think I think in 2025 defaulting to virtual for that makes all the sense in the world. I think we could probably >> 2026.
>> 2026. Wow. Um [laughter] I think it made all the sense last year. It still makes sense this year. Um I think uh I think also I mean potentially we could do it the same weeks as we do the the candidate visits to the district, you know. So so there's we can certainly,
you know, we certainly can accelerate the timeline and make it fit. I I Carl and I were talking about this earlier and I totally agree. You know, I think that was arguably determinative for me last time. Yes. Yeah. So, >> and we have to carve out more time. >> Yeah. >> So, that I think that's a way to do it.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um All right. So, maybe we Well, we already have a motion. >> We have a motion. We have a second by Tom. >> Second by Tom. >> It's, you know, sort of >> as amended now. >> As amended. >> As amended. >> Friendly amendment. We'll take it.
>> Friendly amendment. So, friendly. [laughter] Um, all right. Any further discussion on the makeup of the screening committee? All right, let's go to a vote. Sarah, >> yes. >> Aaron, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> Carla, >> yes. >> Laura, >> yes.
>> And Sean, yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, all right. Focus groups. Let's I think we close out here. Um, again, th this is I'm confident not something we need to vote on the specific makeup of these. So, I'm happy to just sort of take everybody's guidance that there are some opportunities to collapse these. Are we
in agreement that this is still maybe we're not in agreement to our earlier conversation where we literally were not agreeing. Um but what's the consensus of the committee on whether we want to you know try to hold these even if it's a smaller number than we did last time around. >> I'd love to use sack for the students.
>> Okay. >> Right. >> That's part of their role is to consult with us and this is one of the most important things they can consult with us on. >> Um you know maybe if others want to attend maybe let's set up a sack meeting and say that's the agenda item. Yeah, right. Good idea.
>> Um and then but the rest I think let's try to collapse it down to two or three more if possible. >> Okay. >> And I guess the question for you to figure out is what question are you asking them? >> I'm hoping you've got the questions from the last time around. Focus. If one of
them can one of us can find them, I I think we can track those down. It's I mean it's really a facilitated what do you you know what are you looking for? What are your priorities in the next superintendent? What you know what qualities are you looking for? >> Is there anything about the current superintendent you specifically want to
emulate? Is there anything you want to see change in the district going forward? You know it's it's that kind of sort of facilitated discussion. So even if we can't find the specific questions from last time, I think we can pull that together pretty credibly. If we're not doing a survey, are you
comfortable with saying people can email you? >> It's going to open the floodgates. >> Yeah, I mean I think I think we will have an open community forum too. So I mean that that's the other option is you know if folks want to weigh in there's going to be a you know a virtual session for people to join but if people want to
email that's fine too. One of the things that I'll figure out here in the next day or two we should probably set up like an inbox if we're going to be running some of this ourselves. we'll set up a you know an inbox for the purposes of this that >> can collect community input and then ultimately candidate you know candidate
submissions and things like that. So um we'll doesn't have to be my inbox but yes we will make it we will make something available for folks to reach out who can't participate in the forum and aren't selected for a screening committee. Is there a reason why we don't just use our deal?
>> Use what? >> Our deal, our distribution list. >> So we all just see the feedback. >> That in addition to the site visit in terms of the the stream of feedback we had coming in before the selection I think was useful as well.
>> Yeah. >> Do we have to publish them all then? Like are people going to hold back if >> we we didn't have to last time, [clears throat] right? We don't have to publish anything that's private or personal necessarily. We don't have to. We don't have to publish anything. >> We don't have to publish anything.
>> I just want people to be honest and not worry about I agree it's helpful if we can all see it so we're all hearing the same messaging. >> Um but >> yeah to hold back their >> I'm not I'm not inclined to publish it. I mean even if we set up a separate
inbox, it would be subject to public records. So if somebody wants to access it, they can. um you know, subject to things that can be redacted and all that sort of stuff, but you know, if somebody's just expressing an opinion on candidates like that's that would be subject to public record.
So, um yeah, I let me think through we'll think through that and see if there's any downsides. We're not thinking enough, Tom, but I'm generally open to that if the idea is for everybody to get all the input. Sure. And and what it may be maybe the answer though is
in this initial stage where we're collecting just feedback on the process or what we're looking for whatever we use sort of a central mailbox and then we ask folks to reach out to our distribution list when we're in the sort of finalist interview and selection phase so that we all get that. I don't I
don't know that we we all plus everybody from the central office that's on the DRO needs to get >> if if you're if you're going to set up a central box, >> use it for everything. >> Well Well, here's the thing. If you're going to set up a central box, there has to be some processing of that, for lack of better way to say it. In which case,
survey monkey is your easiest thing. Just put a question out there that says, "What is your what are your thoughts or concerns for the the superintendent search?" One question, allow free form text, and then you can run a report and get get everything out. Yeah, >> right. And just open and close the
survey for a little bit. But the survey is is basic. No like, you know, high, medium, lows or anything else like that. Just >> Yeah. >> Right. What are your biggest principles share it, right? >> Principles can share it. You know, it can go out on, you know, for the Friday afternoon publication. You know, we can
put it in our packets, whatever. So, and then it's available >> whoever wants a very light version of >> just a very, very light. >> Yeah, that's fair. Yeah, that's fair. That way there's nothing for anybody to collate. There's nothing for anybody to like, oh, have I read everything. >> Yeah. >> And the results are just at a fingertip in terms of
>> we ask like one demographic question like what's your connection to the district? Yeah. You know, so that we can just sort it that way. But other other than that, yeah, I think that makes sense. >> I was going to recommend that. So if you got 167 responses last time, sorting through 167 emails, this is probably a more efficient way to do that. You also
may get more people to respond instead of asking them to respond open-endedly. It'll just via an email. if it's a survey, make it, you know, an easier entry point. I I love that idea. Yeah, >> that's a good idea. >> Okay. Okay.
Um I think that's it. >> Just vote. >> Uh we don't I don't we don't need to vote on the focus groups. >> No. Did we vote on this yet? >> Yes, we did. >> We voted on the composition. We voted on the composition of the of the screening
committee. >> The timeline >> we'll bring the timeline on the 22nd. >> Um and then yeah, the the I think the process we're fine as well since we're not hiring somebody. I'm not worried about a vote there. >> Okay.
It goes without saying, but and there's only there's already six of us here, but if and I know you're already talking to Carla, so if you can't talk to so many of us, but if you wanted to you wanted to and you wanted to compare notes about was done before, I'm available if you want me to. >> Yep. And I can talk to as many of you as
I want in terms of gathering information and data from the past. We just can't deliberate on decisions that have to be made necessarily. So, um, yeah, we're we're good there. But yeah, that's a good that's a good watch area because this is definitely the kind of topic that we could get ourselves into
trouble. So, >> and in that same vein, like you're obviously taking on a a a huge time commitment with this. So, so first off, thank you proactively, but >> um in in any ways that we can help
um if there are, you know, pockets to be filled, I hope you'll reach out and not feel like you have to do it all. >> If we are going to get this done in three months, it is all hands on deck. So, >> yeah. [laughter] Okay. >> Um I will not be shy. >> Yeah.
>> You know how to get a hold of us. >> I do. >> Awesome. Motion >> please >> to adjourn. >> Second. >> Seconded by Aaron. That is not debatable. Um Sarah >> Sarah froze. >> Sarah froze. [laughter]
>> All right. Sarah doesn't want to adjurnn, but maybe we [laughter] can out vote her. Aaron, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes. >> Carla, >> yes. >> Laura, >> yes. >> Sean, yes. Sarah, >> byebye. >> Defers. [laughter] We are adjourned. Five to zero. Thanks everyone.