WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1Y6iBqxMo

Part: 1

1
00:09:57.200 --> 00:16:52.519
Okay, I'll say a few words. I aliance to the flag United States of America. and to the republic which stands one nation justice for all call Please >> here

2
00:17:02.639 --> 00:17:33.520
>> members present. Executive session, safety and security we talked about and personnel matters. Yes. Presentation. Uh committees

3
00:17:33.520 --> 00:17:48.400
legislator update. Any report at this time, Mr. President Bills and Grounds report uh Susan Alumni Association, Harrisburg Area Community College, no report

4
00:17:48.400 --> 00:18:07.400
tax collection, Dalton County. Dolphin County Technical School, no report. >> Uh Capital Area Media Unit, >> no. >> Board of Commission. Superintendent

5
00:18:09.760 --> 00:18:30.080
approved agenda. Johnson can move a second. Any discussion call agenda. All in favor? >> I approve. Oppose. Eyes have it.

6
00:18:30.080 --> 00:18:52.799
Hand of the public. Any anybody board members comment? Uh, Mr. Bradley, I guess this is more for the administration. I I did I was approached by students over the week and they were

7
00:18:52.799 --> 00:19:13.400
asking about students. I don't know. Am I supposed to reach out to the administration direct? >> Yes. Channel

8
00:19:15.440 --> 00:19:34.000
>> well all clubs all clubs go through um a process and the board approves of that policy. So >> anybody else? >> Yes. Uh I'd just like to give kudos to uh the staff to administration everyone who was involved in production of

9
00:19:34.000 --> 00:19:50.160
graduation. It went off without a hitch very smoothly. I like the way that the bill was done. We are now facing with our backs to the sun and we have seating on both sides which allowed us to have additional people in and it was very

10
00:19:50.160 --> 00:20:13.280
well done. our alumni speaker was excellent and so fine job. >> Yeah. I also want to give kudos to Dr. Erica for the retirement dinner plans um for her health. Um it was nice to see

11
00:20:13.280 --> 00:20:29.480
her in her element how she was bossing those folks around. I loved it. Thank you again. It was a nice event. >> Well, thank you, Mal. I don't have to speak. >> Was great.

12
00:20:34.080 --> 00:20:49.520
Next up is personnel. Did you have a chance to go through personnel? >> Go minutes. >> Somebody say something. >> Huh? >> Did I miss a minute? I sure did. Oh

13
00:20:49.520 --> 00:21:08.000
yeah, I was looking at that too. I think uh approved the minutes for May 18th. Can I get a motion? >> We're moving second. >> Huh? >> Any questions? >> Yes. Are we taking them one by one? May

14
00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:23.679
4th is on there as well. >> May 4th. >> Wait a minute. I missed something. >> May 18th. >> Oh, May 4th. Oh yeah, we think I No case. Thanks.

15
00:21:23.679 --> 00:21:42.400
Let's get that motion back off the floor. We going to do Can I get a motion? Can you withdraw your motion? >> Yes. Withdraw a motion. But we're going to do uh May 4th and May 18th, A and B. Can I

16
00:21:42.400 --> 00:21:59.280
get a motion to approve A and B? Johnson Johnson moves uh items 5A and 5B. Second move and second. Any discussion? >> Are these amended? Are these minutes

17
00:21:59.280 --> 00:22:17.440
amended? Is that why we're voting on that at this time? >> Have you made a correction or not? >> What correction? >> I was >> What I'm asking is any any discussion? >> That's that's my question. Discussion there. No. There's more amendments.

18
00:22:17.440 --> 00:22:39.520
Thank you. >> Roll call. >> Motion to approve item 5 A and B. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.

19
00:22:39.520 --> 00:22:53.919
>> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. row. >> Yes. >> Passes. >> Uh we'll take A through

20
00:22:53.919 --> 00:23:11.799
G. Can I get a motion for personnel A through G? Johnson moves item 7 A through 7G. Second move and second. Any discussion?

21
00:23:12.960 --> 00:23:36.080
Roll call to approve personal items A through G. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Yes.

22
00:23:36.080 --> 00:23:51.200
>> Dr. Marino. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rose. >> Yes. pass. >> All right. Uh H personnel evaluation of assistant superintendent. Can I get a motion?

23
00:23:51.200 --> 00:24:11.760
>> Johnson moves very >> move and second discussion. No person discussion roll call. Motion to approve personel

24
00:24:11.760 --> 00:24:30.400
the assistant superintendent evaluation. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Dr. Marino. >> Yes.

25
00:24:30.400 --> 00:24:55.760
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Finance A through H. Can I get a motion? >> A H.

26
00:24:55.760 --> 00:25:15.919
>> A through H. Second. >> Can I get a motion? >> Yeah. I have a bill. >> Okay. >> All right. Then move a second discussion. >> Roll call.

27
00:25:15.919 --> 00:25:32.159
Finance for each. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Hill. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Marino. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Hatcher.

28
00:25:32.159 --> 00:25:58.080
>> Yes. Yes. >> Motion passes 5. >> Contract A through N. Can I get a motion through 8? Sorry.

29
00:25:58.080 --> 00:26:16.799
I get a second. Okay. Sorry. Catch a second. >> Catch a second. Any discussion? Roll call. >> Motion to approve contracts items A through N. Mrs. Mills.

30
00:26:16.799 --> 00:26:32.080
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Dr. Marino. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Rose. Yes.

31
00:26:32.080 --> 00:27:03.840
>> You shall pass it by. >> Okay. Policy A B. >> Policy A and B. Can I get a motion? >> Items. Uh A and B. Second >> and move and second.

32
00:27:03.840 --> 00:27:22.320
Any discussion? >> I would expect some evaporation on uh policy 827. >> Yeah. Yes. Uh so this uh just I guess to remind

33
00:27:22.320 --> 00:27:40.799
I guess yeah to try to uh reset this there was uh very limited technical language within this uh policy uh that was amended to reflect federal guidelines. Uh and for the uh

34
00:27:40.799 --> 00:27:57.600
for the board's um notification, it is the bolded language in the definitions uh section which um relates to what a conflict of interest uh essentially the definition of a

35
00:27:57.600 --> 00:28:15.840
conflict um for federal purposes. And this definition was expanded to not only include employees, officers, agents, board members, members of uh families um but also uh

36
00:28:15.840 --> 00:28:42.159
uh it was individuals that was added to the uh definition. And this was Yeah. So I believe it was uh the language was expanded to include that um that definition in the

37
00:28:42.159 --> 00:29:01.440
So this is not it's not substantive change. It's a >> chance. >> Yes. Roll call to approve policy edits A and B. >> Mr. >> Yes.

38
00:29:01.440 --> 00:29:17.520
>> Johnson. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Marina. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Hill. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 90.

39
00:29:17.520 --> 00:29:37.440
>> Uh poly 237 first read. So look at that policy. You got any questions? Next time on >> Mr. Apple for 237 for electronics. Yes.

40
00:29:37.440 --> 00:30:04.559
>> And Dr. Dr. Will the second paragraph is that our language or that one from >> the definition we're talking about. We say second paragraph. undefining. >> They're asking is that our language or

41
00:30:04.559 --> 00:30:20.480
PSBA's language? >> Could you come up to the mic? >> Yeah. So, the only thing that changed in this language was that we added everything else should be from our our previous policy. The only thing in this policy that was changed would be when

42
00:30:20.480 --> 00:30:36.640
you're looking at I believe it would be page two under guidelines was more specifically spelled out. But essentially everything else in the policy is from our previous policy and it's reviewed by PSBA unless I'm missing something or you're referring to

43
00:30:36.640 --> 00:30:52.159
something different. >> Okay. So the I guess and it might just be we're understanding. So I understand like we're reading here it's like the possession of the devices that are found to be disruptive disruptive excuse me

44
00:30:52.159 --> 00:31:10.399
can be abusive like I'm trying to figure out what exactly we're trying to state in that second paragraph >> use electronic what we're trying to state. >> Yeah. We're I when I'm reading it, we're stating that we're just basically identifying

45
00:31:10.399 --> 00:31:27.200
um the impact of having these devices talking about our uh personal devices and that they can be disruptive to the educational process. Like what I'm reading it kind of is saying what it's saying. So I'm just trying to get clarification on what you're asking that

46
00:31:27.200 --> 00:31:43.519
you feel like it's missing. >> I don't know if it's missing. It's just kind of like saying maybe it's not like the wording but it's like it's not like it's going in circles. >> So >> So is you're saying that the having these devices can be disruptive and abusive and that's what I'm like it just sounds like aity

47
00:31:43.519 --> 00:31:58.480
>> right establishes that while we recognize that the use of electronic devices um in conformance with policy can be beneficial. It also goes on to state

48
00:31:58.480 --> 00:32:15.279
that personal electronic devices when they're not used >> in conform in conformity with the policy can be disrupted. And so that's why we go on to establish the the the grant of authority from both of law and

49
00:32:15.279 --> 00:32:31.679
policy and then also what we uh determine personal electronics those devices. It's not just the not just the the item itself, it's also the way that it's

50
00:32:31.679 --> 00:32:46.799
>> correct the use of it. >> You don't uh unintentionally ex don't unintentionally prohibit items that the student needs to form the daily. >> Okay. So they use not just have them. >> Right. Right.

51
00:32:46.799 --> 00:33:02.080
>> Does that clarify what you're asking? >> We're trying to figure out in that section. Okay. >> Yeah. I don't I think that's just particularly written. I don't think that's you are you pleasing person to do. Okay. So, and so for the state the law

52
00:33:02.080 --> 00:33:19.039
>> that we address what's coming down from the state level >> if that's correct that's why we made the correct that's why we made the um the revisions >> right like it be to incorporate it into our current policy rather than just create a

53
00:33:19.039 --> 00:33:39.360
ban is going to sweep those things >> my question is about under exceptions uh the first line of the exceptions, exceptions to this prohibition set forth in this policy may be made for health, safety, or emergency reasons. And then it has the caveat with prior approval of

54
00:33:39.360 --> 00:33:55.440
the building principal or designate. And so, if I'm reading this correctly, as I'm reading that, um it's saying that you need prior approval of the building principle or design designate to use the device for the purposes of health, safety, or emergency. And in that case,

55
00:33:55.440 --> 00:34:11.679
if let's just say someone's having a seizure or there's a shooting or something, I don't know that anybody's going to shoot. So this is >> whatever. So I have >> right >> that language actually comes out of this box. >> That's what I thought. That's coming

56
00:34:11.679 --> 00:34:28.320
out. >> This is that is coming out because that there is no correct. Yes, that's coming out. Thank you. >> That's why we do the first read. >> Correct. Is there any other questions on this policy?

57
00:34:28.320 --> 00:34:45.599
>> So then the then next time you see that part you saw will not be in there. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I So I would just I guess I would ask u the since the first reading doesn't doesn't include the the actual like the the

58
00:34:45.599 --> 00:35:03.200
amended language. Um I would ask that we bring it back for a first reading. >> Come back to No, come back for the second reading. Well, no, because the second reading typically the second reading should be um to finalize. >> Well, not the third read. You can do the

59
00:35:03.200 --> 00:35:18.560
second read. >> If everything is okay, the second read, >> you can do it. If it's not, you got a third, >> the final, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Okay. I mean, I I think I think this will need a third. I guess that's what I'm saying. Why would you say you need a third read

60
00:35:18.560 --> 00:35:34.000
when you go to take second read when you go back to committing? >> I would expect the first reading to have >> the proper edits. So because this doesn't have like because the language wasn't struck like we we I guess what I'm saying is we wasted a reading.

61
00:35:34.000 --> 00:35:49.839
>> So here's what I'm going to ask. Because of the timing of this, >> right? >> Because we don't meet in July, >> correct? What we will do is edit it, correct, and send it out to the full board so that you have an opportunity to do that because we want to be able to

62
00:35:49.839 --> 00:36:05.760
deploy this at the beginning of the school year and coming back in August for a first read removes that opportunity. >> Right. So, we will do that before the close of this week. >> I didn't I didn't mean that. >> Did everybody >> No, but it's a valid point. So, we want

63
00:36:05.760 --> 00:36:21.440
to push it out so that >> everybody understand that part. So they're going to go back and correct some of the discussed >> and then >> correct >> um our first meeting >> we'll push that out your first meeting

64
00:36:21.440 --> 00:36:36.960
to look at this first week. Well actually you'll be able to look at the edits >> before that week. Correct. >> But you will see the second reading in August the first meeting. >> Before school starts.

65
00:36:36.960 --> 00:36:54.480
>> No no no no. you'll see the second read before the end of this week. >> You'll be able to act on it the first week in August. So, you'll have the rest of this month, the entire month of July, >> and then you'll vote on it in August. >> And the reasoning for that is because the act goes into effect.

66
00:36:54.480 --> 00:37:10.320
>> The act does not go into effect by the end of this school, by the beginning of next school year, but we want to be able to put it in effect. It goes into effect they're anticipating next school year. >> Okay? which is not 26 27 but 2728 that's when they will require it to be in

67
00:37:10.320 --> 00:37:26.560
effect when it comes out for the u edited accepted questions or concern >> always always >> so when you send it out you can highlight the part and take it out >> correct >> you're not adding anything

68
00:37:26.560 --> 00:37:44.000
>> so so if you see anything else you like to take out or discuss that we can do that >> well we'll also do I think it's going to be beneficial just to Miss Lamel's question. We're also going to send out our current policy so that it's clear

69
00:37:44.000 --> 00:38:00.560
what we already approved in 2017, which is most of what you're reading here. The vast majority of this is 2017. We only dropped in the new pieces. So, we want to be able So, you can see what is and what is not already board approved.

70
00:38:00.560 --> 00:38:16.560
>> I And I guess for the public's edification. Yes, >> the the the edits that are active in this draft are the additions of the uh types of electronic devices that are considered

71
00:38:16.560 --> 00:38:35.440
>> correct. >> I think there were two there were two two categories of electronic devices. >> All right. You got your work out. Okay. Question. Go ahead.

72
00:38:35.440 --> 00:38:51.359
>> Question down. And this isn't a question. This is just a recommendation and and this is for the committee's consideration. As you're sending out edits, you can decide what you want to do. But I would recommend that we would add one under our exceptions. We have already student is a member of a student

73
00:38:51.359 --> 00:39:06.800
volunteer of a volunteer fire company ambulance or rescue squad. I would also recommend that we add our student work uh participant. If we have any student exceptions, I would recommend that we would include that those students in

74
00:39:06.800 --> 00:39:22.720
that. I think that there's a you know an argument that could be made for a kid who's in the building who has eyes on to have their device to perhaps be able to be in communication if some for whatever reason. >> You say you would ask >> the student rights. Let me ask you

75
00:39:22.720 --> 00:39:41.599
they're not they're not envisioned in disposal. >> Okay. So that's what I mean like this that's why I'm saying like I don't know that this should have gone. >> Okay. >> That would be my recommendation. Where did that come from for the volunteer fire company and rescue squad?

76
00:39:41.599 --> 00:39:56.880
>> That's in our current policy >> from the volunteer firefighters. >> Yeah. >> So we're permitting students to leave school to go respond on fire. You couldn't be a volunteer firefighter at 16? >> No. I mean, no. No, that's not that's

77
00:39:56.880 --> 00:40:13.280
not my question. Are they allowed to leave? Are we permitting them to be placed to go respond on fire? >> If there is an emergency and they needed them, they called Yes. That's currently in our policy now. Yes. Since 2017. >> It's part of the act. >> Yeah. >> They haven't. Well, even before the act,

78
00:40:13.280 --> 00:40:33.040
it's been in our correct any way that when we have something that comes up for review for the first read, why it would not have the changes for us to see them today. >> So, why don't we have to change it?

79
00:40:33.040 --> 00:40:48.960
>> That was my question. They've not been listed that way historic, but we can change it, >> right? >> We can we can absolutely do that. Yeah, she's asking what we should have

80
00:40:48.960 --> 00:41:05.359
next time. >> Y want those to follow. >> So So she said if it wasn't there would be discussion >> the changes the question >> should they should they follow a structural format. So typically when you

81
00:41:05.359 --> 00:41:26.480
have acts that are being amended there's a format certain if a word is in parentheses it means something. That's what you want then. >> So what what I'm hearing them say >> when you go down the line >> they want the red line.

82
00:41:26.480 --> 00:41:43.040
>> You see something yelling it out however you want to do it. Take it out. This is what's going in. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I was saying that during the review process, it should have the changes that

83
00:41:43.040 --> 00:41:58.800
you want. Then you won't have to send them out in an email to us. That's what I was asking. Is you understand what I'm saying? >> No, I >> this came up for a first read, but it has no of the changes that you're going to be doing.

84
00:41:58.800 --> 00:42:13.839
>> That's why that's why I originally asked for >> Right. So that was my question. And so in the future when we have something for a first breed in a policy, it should have potential changes for us to at least look at and ask questions about.

85
00:42:13.839 --> 00:42:30.319
>> I Okay. >> So, can I just say it does have the changes? I think that we're talking about, correct me if I'm wrong, only basically striking one particular line or sentence, but the policy that we're reading does have the changes that we discussed in the policy committee with

86
00:42:30.319 --> 00:42:45.200
the exception of we're going to be striking one line. So other than that, this is the we are presenting to you the policy that was discussed >> and I think they're in vote so we can see the changes that were made. >> Yeah, I think what they're asking is

87
00:42:45.200 --> 00:43:00.800
yes, you're right. They're asking from the original policy that was adopted in 2027, what has been added. >> So you want that. >> Okay. That would be bold. The 2027 would not be bold. So you can see clearly what has been included. So

88
00:43:00.800 --> 00:43:17.359
>> yes. So so bold for addition strike through for >> deletion. I don't know about >> well that's what we just had in the last one. We just saw that. So what you're asking for is consistency and formatting processes.

89
00:43:17.359 --> 00:43:33.359
>> Okay. So just one caveat. All of this is going to change on Tuesday, >> but we will make sure because remember four dots is going away, correct? >> But we are working with the new company and we will still be able to make those distinctions, we believe. But either

90
00:43:33.359 --> 00:43:50.319
way, they will they will happen. We just can't tell you what they're going to look like, but you will highlighted in yellow, but you will still see a distinction. might be. It might be. You just don't know when. But we'll know what Tuesday. Tuesday isn't tomorrow. >> Next Tuesday. We'll know next Tuesday

91
00:43:50.319 --> 00:44:06.960
for the So for clarity on the record, we're not adding an additional reading. We'll make all necessary changes for the second reading. All all all items that all things that need to be >> added and all things that will be included second.

92
00:44:06.960 --> 00:44:31.680
>> Okay. >> That seems right for a second but I understand her to say she wanted action so we can >> that's still the second reason. He's correct. That's second reading. All right. >> Okay. I still have that. Okay. Uh

93
00:44:31.680 --> 00:44:58.079
nothing on the new business or other is there anything a motion for journ all in favor? >> I >> oppose. Wait, you always

94
00:44:58.079 --> 00:45:08.319
don't go anywhere. You have decided and this young decide.