I call this meeting of the District 211 Board of Education to order. May I have a roll call, please? >> Miss Baron, >> here. >> Miss Cavl, >> here. >> Mr. Dumbrossski, >> here. >> Mrs. Lopez. >> Miss Russell, >> here. >> Mr. Van Dyk >> here.
>> Mr. Rosenlum >> here. Please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance followed by a moment of silence. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is public comments. The board welcomes your participation and values hearing from our community. Please remember this is a meeting of the
board held in public, not a dialogue. So board members will not be responding or answering questions during this time. Comments should focus on school district matters. And to protect privacy, please do not mention or identify individual
students. We ask everyone to speak with respect and civility so each voice can be heard. Vulgar, obscene, libalist language or interruptions will not be tolerated. If you have concerns about district staff or board members, please follow the district's communication
protocols so they can be addressed appropriately. Please note, this meeting is recorded and livereamed. It's being watched by people from across our community, including neighbors, staff, parents, and students. Therefore, we ask that you value the procedures and
decorum of our meeting, being nice and respectful of those at the podium so they may be heard. When I call your name, please come to the podium and state your name for the record. You may also choose to state if you are a resident of the district. You will have
three minutes to share your comments. Please note that your time may not be given to another speaker. The timer on the display will guide you. If you would like a response from the superintendent, please leave your contact information with
>> Mr. Cleber. >> Mr. Cleber, um, who is sitting to the left of the audience section. Thank you. First on our list is Kristen Baker.
Good evening. My name is Kristen Baker and I am a district of 211 or in district. I'm here tonight for the fifth time to put several things on record. In 2018, the district's own outdoor facility study ranks Shamberg baseball and softball fields as the number one in
need districtwide. That finding came from the district's own consultants, not from us. Under the se September 2017 Manhard Consulting proposal section 3H, the district contracted for a punch list of the field deficiencies. That punch
list has never been produced to date despite our formal and repeated foyer request. We refiled a narrow a narrowed request on July 24th of this year specifically targeting that document.
the subsequent $187,0007 $733 drainage system remediation performed by um MARDM construction completed in August 2018 has never been independently post construction verified by the
district. We are also still waiting on records from 2005 to 2010 covering the field's original construction. The district's response to date has been no records located. We do not believe that that response is adequate and we are we will continue to pursue this forward.
I'll also note for the record tomorrow marks the response deadline on our most recent narrowed request and this is the fourth time since we have started this conversation in April that these foyas are sent back just for an extension. It
always comes on the fifth day between 3:30 and 4 pm. So, at the last hour. While the extensions are permitted under statute, a pattern of last minute timing, four requests in a row is something we've placed on the record tonight, not something we're alleging
bad faith. We're asking that future responses come in earlier with notice. I also want to place something on the record that on July 17th, administration told me that no deficiencies were identified in the drainage work completed on this field. But there is a
letter report dated November 23rd, 2018, 3 months after the drainage project was completed from SCT Consultants LLC addressed to the project engineer at Manhard Consulting, the district's own retained consulting
firm. The report states that the improvements completed that summer have not seemed to effectively drain the water and that the outfield continues to remain wet for a period of time following participation. Again, these are not our own character
characterizations. This is the district's own consultant's own soil testing firm. We raise these points tonight because this is bigger than the documents. This kind of tension that has been building is what creates tension between the
community and the parents. We're asking that you follow up. No more delays. We just want answers and movement and this is for the community. The push back of the unbburdensome and unruly. We've been doing this for five months
now. The burden is on us as parents to produce a document that brings great value to the public. It's community money. taxpayer dollars. The value is there. To say that it produces too much burden on the district is simply ridiculous. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Next on the list is Lee Bennett. Hello, Superintendent Campbell, Mr. maker, President Rosenlon, board, staff, and community. I'm Lee Bennett, a youth sports advocate in district.
Media often reports as fact that very few high school athletes play in college. They say 7% play with 2% receiving an athletic scholarship. This is how many make the collegiate
team, not the number that play on a team. Universities also have vibrant club and inter mural teams for wider participation. Participation is also the purpose of a fourth or fifth high school team. The
first team varsity is the team where we recognize the school's best players. This is the only team that gets to compete for a state championship. This is the high school team that matches the televised collegiate programs.
Development is the purpose of the next two teams in a strong program. These are JV and freshman A teams. These two teams address an issue largely absent in the collegiate level, the rapid development of teenage bodies. A collegiate
freshman, especially a female, has already grown into her adult body. A high school freshman is very unlikely to be among the school's best, but may grow into varsity role as she participates on a developmental team.
Students unable to make one of these top three teams are behind their peers. They face an uphill battle to reach the varsity level. So, the purpose of the fourth or fifth teams is to allow greater participation in popular sports.
Why do some MSL sports have more teams than boys volleyball despite fewer interested students? Boys volleyball regularly attracts more players than girls basketball yet has two fewer teams.
Colleges actually, subject to the specifics of Title 9 regulations have teams for the boys based on their interest. It is not a violation of Title 9 to have more boys participating in sports if more boys are interested in
sports. As the data for district 211, 214, and 220 shows, a participation team for boys volleyball is better justified than several existing MSL teams. Please allow students to participate in
volleyball regardless of sex. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak this evening? Okay, thank you. Next on our agenda is the consent agenda
items. There are several agenda items here. Do any board members have any questions or comments regarding anything on the consent agenda this evening? President Rosen Bloom, I have um an
issue with the minutes. >> I'm sorry. >> I have an issue with the minute minutes that's part of the con that are part of the consent agenda. >> Okay. Which which minutes? And we will remove those from the consent agenda.
>> I noticed in reviewing them um >> is it I'm sorry, Miss Caval. Is it the the minutes from the regular meeting of June 18th? Yes. >> Okay. Then then I will >> Okay. So the action item letter H
>> uh which has to do with NSSTO the immigration and customs enforcement re resolution that is um I I thought that that was an action item but perhaps that's inaccurate. I thought
we took a vote and Mr. Van Dyk had said no while the rest of the board members had said yes. So I just want clarity on that item on whether or not it is accurate. >> Okay. Why don't we do this for now? Um
have that item removed from the consent agenda and we can have that as a separate item and we could take a look at that right now and and discuss that separately. Thank you. So, does anybody have anything else on the consent agenda that they would like removed at this time?
Okay. Then I would like to make a motion, get back to it, that we approve the consent agenda minus item A, the approval of minutes of
the regular meeting of June 18, 2026. I make a motion to do that. May I have a second, please? >> Second. >> Okay. May I have a roll call please for the consent agenda minus item A.
>> Miss Baron >> I. >> Miss Cavl >> I. >> Mr. Dumbrossski. >> No. >> Miss Russell >> I. >> Mr. Van Dyke. >> I. >> Mr. Rosenlum. >> I. The motion passes. Now we will go
back and there is a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 18, 2026. I'd like to make a motion to approve that. May I have a second, please? >> Second. >> Okay. Discussion on the regular meeting
of June 18th minutes. Miss Caval, you had a question regarding a specific item on there under NSSO. Correct. And that was the NSSO resolution to approve
to approve the resolution for for the um immigration >> signage or just a resolution on on immigration for NSSO I believe it was. Right. >> Right. I I think the takeaway understanding was that it was approved
like to um should they want to put it up for a vote, they can. Not that the resolution itself was approved, but just the way that it's listed there, it I remember it was kind of a confusing discussion at the meeting itself and then the way it's
listed in the minutes um because it's item H and then item I has a bold motion carries four to zero. It just wasn't clear to me. So, I just wanted to make sure that the minutes were clear. >> I I think the vote was for item G if I'm
not mistaken. Miss Marin, do you >> No, I see. Um, so you have G, which >> and then we have I >> H and then you have I and then you have motion carries. So, I don't think that there's a motion carries for H.
>> So, it makes it seem like H and I are together. was just a discussion item. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And it was it was a it was a consensus item. It was not a a vote item. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I apologize. You know, I just wanted to make sure our
minutes were actually accurate. So, thank you everybody for indulging me. I appreciate it. >> And then and then and then Mr. Did you have a question on that? >> So, so consensus isn't noted in minutes, just votes. >> Correct. And for the consensus, the
consensus was a majority felt that it it should be um it should that we felt that it should be um written and drafted by NSSO. >> So how how is that notated in in the uh >> in the minutes
>> in the minutes? >> I don't see that notated. >> Yeah. And that's something we can notate. It should be notated. So >> whether whether I mean every everything else is a vote. So we we know how things were voted upon. If it's not a vote, it
it should be notated one way or another. >> Correct. >> That it was um >> we'll make that up. >> Captured. Got it. >> One way. Okay. Yeah. >> So >> I would say we we uh >> ask to have that amended >> or do we ask for an amendment to the
minutes now and approve them with the amendment >> to record >> that it will have consensus listed? Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, the motion is to approve. So, so
there's an amendment request to approve the minutes of the of the regular meeting of June 18, 2026 with an amendment to that particular item related to the resolution and draft
for NSSEO to record the consensus response from each board member during that meeting. May I have May I have a second on that motion, please? >> Second. >> Any other questions or comments? May I
have a roll call, please? >> Miss Baron, >> I. >> Miss Caval, >> I. >> Mr. Dumbowski, >> abstain. >> Mrs. Lopez. Oh, excuse me. Miss Russell, >> I. >> Mr. Van Dyk, >> I. >> Mr. Rosenlum, >> I. That motion passes.
>> I'm I'm sorry. I um misunderstood the motion. Can I change mine from I to abstain? >> I've recorded that. Thank you. >> The motion still carries. So, >> thank you. All right. Next on the agenda
is [snorts] I believe board updates and information. So we have our freedom of information act request. This is an information item. And next is the 2026 2027 tentative budget transportation fund. This is also
an information item. No questions or comments. Okay. Next is unfinished business. And the first item is I would like to make a motion that the board of education approve the resolution
authorizing Franic PC and Hajes Loise Eisenhhammer Rodic and Con LLP as its legal representatives to file a request to intervene in appeal proceedings in all 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026
assessment appeals filed at the PTAB. for which the board receives notice from the local county board of reviews through June 30th, 2027, plus circuit court tax objection complaints activated during this time period represent the
board's interests in these proceedings proceedings and execute any settlements or stipulations in such proceedings consistent with the board's interests as authorized by the board of or administration as submitted by Lauren Hmel, chief operating officer, CSBO, and
as recommended by Dr. Judith Campbell, Superintendent of Schools. May I have a second, please? >> Second. >> Discussion. I oppose this resolution for several reasons. The first of which, there is no dollar cap on this. This is just an open-ended um
it's just open-ended there. There's nothing in our resolution that that caps this or ties this to 100,000. this this could be for a dollar and we'd be paying both of these attorneys to represent us on an infinite number of cases. So, uh,
for that reason, I I don't support this resolution as written. >> Dr. Campbell, did you have anything to say about this resolution? >> Um, I was just going to state that this was brought up during the June meeting around uh the resolution. Um, and to Mr.
Don Broski's point. It was uh assessed value of more than $100,000. In 2020, the board approved an annual resolution allowing intervention in all qualifying appeals received during that one-year period. So, the request was for that
consideration to be taken again. Um we currently participate in a property tax consortium with other Shamberg townships taxing bodies and share legal and appraisal costs for jointly filed PTAB cases with district 15 and both of these
district currently use the annual PTAB intervention resolution. So just additional information as you all determine your next steps. Are there any other board members with comments or questions? Okay, hearing none. Matt,
>> I'm confused. >> Okay, >> so we have the [clears throat] resolution authorizing the intervention and it says there um taxing bodies of property owners
filing appeals seeking property tax relief in excess of 100,000 in assessed valuation. >> Is it because in the resolution that we have that is not stated. I'm I'm trying to figure out
what the issue is. >> Miss Hmel, I'm going to have Miss Hmel come out come up and explain in greater detail. >> Thank you. >> I will be right there. Just one moment. I just closed out of it accidentally here. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Now I'm navigating the new system
here. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Uh, so the $100,000 the district only receives notification if somebody is seeking more than $100,000 in assessed valuation change. Does that answer your question on that? Okay.
>> So then we wouldn't, to Mr. Jumbroski's point, be appealing anything about a dollar, $2, anything under $100,000. No, we do not receive notification of those changes. >> But what was your issue, Mr. Dumbrosski, that doesn't state the fee that we'd be charged by the the law firm?
>> There's no there's no cap. If our policy is 100,000, we don't receive notice, but let's say it's 50,000 for district 15 and they receive notice and we're on board for sharing those costs. We do that. And to that point, if we have any other resolutions that would conflict
with this one, according to line item three, this would govern >> that's a county uh requirement, the $100,000. So it would not vary, it would not be less than that for the notification that would come to other districts, >> right? But we get notifications in aggregate for towns and homeowners
associations and anyone that decides to compile their costs regardless of whether they own individually or not. We take that in aggregate >> the property uh that is filed if it is
in aggra aggregate if there are multiple pins it is filed the same as we've always shared with the board. Y >> um but there is a requirement that that has to be in excess of $100,000. >> Right. So if we have three property owners and they're each at 35,000,
then that would be in excess of a h 100,000 per the way we we review that. And to that point, if we're only capturing $100,000, that's about $6 annually of our portion of that tax bill. So >> there is no there is no change in the way that we are proposing this compared
to what we are currently doing with the board. >> Yep. Okay. So again, the fact that there is no dollar amount in this resolution proposal, it still follows the same parameters under which we've been following for some years now.
>> Correct. >> Yes. >> Just changed to >> and and there's nothing restricting the county from changing that 100,000 requirement or lowering that in the future. >> In this resolution, there is nothing that addresses the county changes. No. Right.
>> That would be something that would need to be through the county's. So if they if tomorrow they decided to lower that 100,000 cap to 50,000, we would still then when we get notified for a $50,000 change, we wouldn't hold the 100,000. We
would just adjust for that >> or we can revisit this resolution and amend it at that time if we needed to. >> Certainly do that. So really the crux of this resolution is to make this an annual >> correct >> review and um an appeal versus every
month. Is that really what this is about? >> Correct. [clears throat] >> Okay. >> So I guess I have one additional for what we have put out in expense for
for this service. What have we gained? have have we always gained compared to the amount that's gone out and again if you don't have that I I know this is on the spot >> actually I think we we were shared this information some months back if I'm not mistaken
>> there should be um >> there's a chart in the consent agenda >> consent >> I'll just verbally here instead of >> [clears throat] >> Um, item H in the consent agenda
provides a summary chart of that information. says total intervention cost 2.1 million and change. Um possible losses averted through the appeal process
20 over 27.7 million >> and that is for a period of time 1998 to 2024 tax years. >> But it it comes down to we're we're not losing money by doing this. We we've gained money by doing this.
>> Correct. >> Thank you. That that's >> and I >> the point I was trying to >> say we are not yes we are uh avoiding those losses is what I would how I would describe that. >> Gotcha. Thank you. Appreciate [clears throat]
>> any other questions or comments. >> Thank you Miss Humble. Thank you. >> Thank you Miss Humble. May I have a May I have a roll call, please? >> Miss Baron. >> I. >> Miss Caval >> I. >> Miss Russell. I, >> Mr. Van Djk.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Dumbrossski. >> No, >> Mr. Rosenlum. >> I The motion passes. >> I've lost my place. Um, >> there we go. Thank you. Okay, next item is new business and approvals. Um just as you all get ready to look at
this information, three rounds of RFPs were completed in which five um companies responded to the RFPs. Then there were two companies that were evaluated as finalists into a third round and up on evaluation um with our
benefits team and the pharmacy benefits consultant. It is recommended that the district enter into an agreement with Prime Therapeutics. So, just to highlight that for you all as you all determine your next decision. >> So, I'd like to make a motion that the board of education approve the award of pharmacy benefit manager services to
Prime Therapeutics for a three-year term beginning January 1st, 2027 as presented and to authorize the superintendent or designate to sign contracts for services as submitted by Lauren Hmel, chief operating officer, CSBO, and as recommended by Dr. Judith Campbell,
superintendent of schools. May I have a second, please? >> Second. Are there any comments or questions regarding this motion? We have a roll call, please. >> Miss Baron, >> I. >> Miss Caval, >> I. >> Mr. Van Dyk, >> I. >> Miss Russell,
>> I. >> Mr. Dumbrossski, >> I. >> Mr. Rosenlum, >> I. The motion passes. Next is a motion. I'd like to make a motion that the board of education approve the pre-approval form for future expense reimbursement for Jane Russell to attend the Ed
legislative breakfast meeting on August 10th, 2026 as presented. May I have a second, please? >> Second. >> May I have a roll call, please? >> Miss Russell, >> I. >> Mr. Van Dyk, >> Miss Caval,
>> I. >> Miss Baron, >> I. >> Mr. Dumbrosski, >> abstain. >> Mr. Rosenlow. >> I The motion passes. I would like to um request an amendment to the agenda to add two more items um prior to
adjournment. The first being an items for future discussion item and the other to be an item entitled cell phone policy. May I have a second for that motion, please? >> Second. may have a roll call to add two items to
our agenda this evening, please. >> Miss Baron, >> I. [clears throat] >> Miss Caval, >> I. >> Mr. Dumbrossski, >> I >> Miss Russell, >> I. >> Mr. Van Dyk, >> hi. >> Mr. Rosenlum,
>> I motion passes. Okay. The next item on our agenda as amended is cell phone policy. Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. So, we know that in the spring that legislation passed that um all school
districts in the state of Illinois need to adopt the and amend to the cell phone apology that was cell phone policy. >> I'm sorry. This isn't a separate item. This is an item under item future discussion. >> Yes. >> So, rather than have this as a separate
item for Dr. Campbell to describe. Um, I'd like to open this as an item for future discussion. Okay. So, this is an item one of the items that's being presented for future discussion. I'm sorry. Please proceed, Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. So, as if it is considered an item
for future discussion, um, would like to bring information back to the board as it relates to the policy that district 211 will move forward with as it relates to cell phones for our students. So the request is to have um discussion
around a cell phone policy based on the new legislation that has come to exist and been passed in the state of Illinois. So the request is to have that as an item for future discussion. Does anybody have any comments or questions regarding um before I ask you for your
feelings and consensus on having that as an item for future discussion? I I just noticed one thing that the [clears throat] current policy also mentions the student conduct policy and so I'm assuming that that would have to
be reviewed also if we were to approve this. >> Yes, the code of conduct is currently being reviewed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, Miss Russell, do you feel this should be an item for future discussion? >> I do. Yes. >> Mr. Van Djke, are you in agreement to have this as an
item for future discussion perhaps at our next board meeting? >> I know we've got to align with the state, but I I know we we have uh in my mind a pretty good cell phone policy. So yeah, I know we need to adjust things to align with what's required. Whether we
need to discuss at the board meeting until it comes as a formal is that what you're asking before it comes as a formal new um or adjustment to our policy. You want to discuss it and then have it come as a as a a a discussion
item. So we'll we'll have like two evenings of discussing it. first discuss it and then have it come as a discussion item because it's a an adjustment to the policy and then come back for approval of that adjusted. So, it's really three
evenings or do we bring it just as as an adjusted policy to fit through the state's requirements as a first read and then bring it back as an approval? Because in my mind what you're asking is is a discussion then
come back a month later with an updated and discuss that updated and then come back a month later and come for approval. So in my mind that's one too many but please >> perhaps it could be presented as a first reading and we can discuss it.
>> That's what a first reading in my mind kind of is. So in my mind just the process is bring it as a first reading discuss it and then any adjustments as usual we discuss and then bring back before [clears throat] the final
approval. I unless I'm missing am I >> that makes sense to me. >> Okay. >> Miss Russell, how do you feel about that? >> Fine. >> Okay. I'm in agreement with that as well. discussion. I just
>> Yeah. Well, and >> trying to condense, I guess, >> and and a little bit about it is it's it's here, >> right? >> Right. The legislation says this this school year. >> Yeah. We got to do it. I agree. So, >> next couple weeks here, we got another meeting. Right. So,
>> Mr. Dumbrosski, >> I'm curious what would the first reading be? Would it be our existing policy modified or would it be the press policy that we're still waiting on? I mean, part of my vote with regard to just board member expenses is we're kind of
in limbo because our policy and press plus and and now new uh state mandates are all over the place. And from my perspective, I' I'd like a little foundation for our policies before we
start tweaking them because I'm not sure what we're going to be tweaking or discussing. Existing, proposed, press plus. So, what I could offer is uh to in the end of the week updates provide um what our current policy entails and that's something I know I provided a
little while ago, but what our current policy entails. Also provide what that looks like for our schools currently. look at what legislation is stating and then provide some examples for you all to review prior to the August 13th board meeting so that you all can have
discussion in detail based upon the information that has been shared with you all. >> And what's our timeline for press plus? Uh I if I'm remembering correctly from the timeline that was shared at the end of the week I want to say uh it will be
completed December for a January vote and I'm looking at Mr. Clever. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. >> Commissioner Nebrask are you good with having this as a item for first reading or first
discussion at our next board meeting? >> That's that's fine. It sounds like until December, we have to work with our existing policies and modify those to be in compliance with state mandates. So I I would expect the first reading of revisions to be in compliance with the state.
>> Thank you. Okay. So that will be added for uh for that purpose. Does anybody else have any items for future discussion? Uh, I'd like to revisit this the the minutes from the special meeting in
February and March. Uh, we took the vote to approve those and the vote was 30. Um, I don't think it met the requirements for that motion to pass. >> What motion was that? >> Uh, approval of the minutes from the
special meeting. >> Okay. Approval of the minutes >> from the February 16th special meeting >> 16th or 17th whatever that was >> went over press plus >> so is the is the item for future
discussion or concern about the >> passage of the minutes from that meeting >> I think it needs to be revised but um I don't see how the 30 vote carries the 30 vote to approve the minutes from that meeting.
>> Okay. I think I'm I'm not sure why at another meeting where there is sufficient presence that there w there weren't there weren't votes to overturn an affirmative.
I think it needs to be a majority and there wasn't a majority. >> I'm so sorry. I'm going to have to go. We're going to have to go. >> Thank you, Miss Caval. So, we will review the minutes and the
approval. We will review the approval um and and have that as an item for for discussion at our next meeting. Thank you. as >> so does anybody everybody okay with having that as an item to to review the
the voting on the minutes from the February special board meeting at which time we had a workshop with ISB >> yeah if someone feels as though it was uh done incorrectly or it's invalid and
>> okay let's review it and go from there >> okay anything else anybody else have any items for future discussion not future discussion but just like an update for um people in the community that we are working through a lot of
technical difficulties in the last um month or so and so that is because we you know we had to move from board docs to diligent or actually they merged correct >> yes they have merged diligent and borocs
and so now um we have moved over to all like diligent and it's just been a a little bit of um technical difficulties. The website has been in there's been some updates um and so just bear with us
if anybody finds any issues. Um please continue to send those over to >> to Dr. Campbell um so we can look into it and correct any errors. >> I've got one thing here, Steve. >> Yes, Mr.
>> Mr. Presidente. Um, our communities have different times of the year where they have a parade. September 5th, Shamberg coming up here. Um, I know our elementary district in 54 in Shamberg, their board and
superintendent regularly participates in that parade. And I I know District 54 encompasses several communities just like we do in 211. Um and they they again try and be in each of those communities parades. So
I was wondering if um whether it's future board discussion or or um just shut it down tonight or move it forward. But I' I'd like some interest in um some or all of the board participating in our community's event
of of a parade, whether that's the September Fest or the whatever each community um is celebrating at the time. Future discussion or someone's input. Dr. Campbell, >> I I can speak to that. That is um in progress. um that is uh we have reached
out regarding the parade and district 211 plans to be involved in uh attend the parade. I'm looking at my communications >> specifically September fest >> for the September 1st. So we it's already in Q. >> Very good. Thank you. always nice seeing the kids out there and it's nice one I
got to say I was in 54 54's board and um that was one of the highlights of being on the board being in that parade and interacting with the community >> um and the kids lining up for the parade interacting with the kids interacting with the community then going down the parade route so thank you
>> as the details are finalized we'll provide you an update >> very good thank you for bringing that up >> and I do know in my conversations with Dr. Campbell that has been something that she has been really trying to push forward is like highlight more of district 211 out in the community have um our presence out there uh whether
that be in the newspaper whether that be at parades and so forth. So those have been ongoing conversations that I have heard and continue to hear. So, I'm excited that we are finally kind of seeing some more things in action. >> For sure. And and I want to share a little bit more the just the excitement
from the the kids. And again, I was in the elementary district, but the excitement from the elementary kids to the high school kids. I mean, that's my school. That's my school. That's that's my school. Just all up and down the parade route. And that's going to be the same for 211. I mean, high school kids
are all tough, right? But they love their school. They love their their teachers. They So, thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> All right. Thank you. Well, I don't have any other items for tonight's agenda. So, as more
president, I call this meeting adjourned. Thank you.