today, July 14th. Happy all you guys could come out tonight. I'm sure you have something better to do, but it's nice to that you guys join us. This is the board of education meeting for which adequate notice under the open public meetings act was provided by written notice on January 6, 2026 to the courier news, the
echo sentinel, the star ledger, tap into Warren, and the clerks of the borrow of Wong in the townships of Greenbrook, Longill and Warren. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Decker, >> present. Miss Fazeron Rosverski here. >> Mr. Galla >> here.
>> Miss Lee >> here. >> Miss Potter >> here. >> Miss Pasca >> here. >> Miss Rexford >> here. >> Mr. Dente >> here. >> Miss Rumpor >> here. >> Mr. Rberg >> here. Uh we have a special guest tonight. I'd like her to introduce
herself because uh our BA is not available tonight. Uh Billy Schultz. So if you can just tell us who you are. >> Hi, I'm Brenda Fleer. Um I'm Billy's assistant. Thanks for being here. Okay, we're going to do the pledge of allegiance, sir.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty, liberty, justice for all. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. In accordance with the provisions of the
New Jersey Open Public Meeting Act, be it hereby resolved that the board move into executive session to discuss confidential personnel and legal matters in a W hrea settlement after which action may be taken. It is expected that the matters discussed in executive
session will be made public as soon as the need for confidential confidentiality no longer exists. May I have a motion to move? >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> Okay, great. So, we're going to go into executive session. Folgo as well will be
done by 7:30 at which time we'll reconvene into public session and move forward. Okay. Thank you everybody for coming out. Um, got a few things to go over this evening. Hopefully, we'll be quick and
we'll get everyone out of here. Uh, do we have any board correspondents to discuss this evening or to relate? Okay, then moving on. Reports and presentations. Do we have any superintendence comments, Dr. JW? >> Um,
so I can just comment that our uh crew over the summer has been very busy. Our BNG crew as usual um getting the building ready for next year. We actually have a a very busy summer right now with our ESY going on. We have a number of camps going on. We have our empower summer enrichment uh happening.
So, our building is very active despite school not being in session. Um there are a lot of things we are planning for that you will be hearing more about. um in the the coming weeks. So, we are finalizing our proposal to bring to the board for what should be included in the
referendum projects. Um we're also working on getting our strategic plan information up on our website uh and working on just planning out our opening days next year. So, all more to come uh by our August meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh I have a few things to
say. Like to editorialize at this point. uh wishing everyone a good summer and I guess we won't see everyone for another month. Uh but again as Dr. J said uh even though school is out we are still uh quite busy quite active uh always
preparing for uh the upcoming school year and for uh our freshman class uh which is always exciting. Uh the comments I have tonight deal with the AI policy. A few weeks ago we discussed it. I know there's it's on the agenda tonight and I know there is certainly
some uh push back with respect to it uh for whatever reason personally whether we have a policy or not. I guess I could not a hill I necessarily need to die on but I I think it provides some sort of
structure and some sort of direction certainly for the staff to live by. Uh AI has come along. I know it's here to stay. Uh but the way I look at AI or artificial intelligence, we've had it for a number of years. It's not new. Uh
you know, certainly with uh Google and other search engines, stuff like that. This stuff's been around for a while. Granted, AI, you know, the way it's looked at now is maybe taking it to the next step, but at the end of the day, uh a lot of it is just taking current
information, figuring out a way to synthesize it, and then spit it out. Uh some of the questions have to do with uh cheating. Uh cheating's been going on a long time. I know certainly when I was in school, I certainly witnessed my fair
share of cheating. So it's it's been there and it's here and it's and that too is here to stay, I'm sure. Um the key with AI and I think that's been mentioned before any kind of uh technology advances is not necessarily
what we get with it but it's how we use it and how we move forward with it. You know all I can you reference a very basic comment with regard to technology is calculators. calculators came out about 50 years ago. Personal
calculators, uh, addition, subtraction, multiplication, square roots, that was always there, certainly for a boatload of years. Calculators just made it easier and made it quicker. But at the end of the day, the students you would hope would have to still understand the concept of mathematics. So I would hope
that even with AI you would still understand the concept of what you were doing and the AI would just facilitate that just like technology has facilitated all sorts of uh ways of life
with respect to what we do. My view is we are in the solution business. We are not in the problem business. We were elected here to resolve issues figure out what to do. It's very easy to identify problems and we do that all the
time, but the key is how we're going to address them and the solutions we give. Um, again, people have issues with policies. I'm not a huge fan of people just saying, well, this policy is no good. What I would prefer to hear, this policy
is no good. This is how we should rewrite it. This is what we should do. And then circulate their form, their draft, and then we can discuss it. Personally, we had this issue a month or so ago with regard to a resolution that the uh schoolboard association was
trying to push through or have us adopt with regard to a letter or a resolution going to the state with regard to funding and with regard to reimbursement for us. As I mentioned publicly, I was not a fan of it. I didn't think it said anything. So, what did I do? I wrote my
own resolution and then that passed and that's going to be submitted to the school. So again, we're in the problem solving business, the solution business, not the problem identification. So that that's the only thing I have with regard to the AI tonight. If it moves forward, it doesn't move forward. You know, we're
going to deal with that. You know, I I let's every policy that we adopt, I'm sure I could poke holes in and for most of the time, you know, in general, they're probably very good and they serve the purpose. But nothing is not flawed. And granted, we may pass
something unanimously, but you know, at the end of the day, it's some sort of compromise and it's a guidance and it allows the again, as I mentioned, staff, administration, and the teachers to live by and certainly the students. So, they have a roadmap whether it passes or not.
I think the uh with respect to that and with regard to uh uh abuse of AI because I think that's the issue. uh there are certain other safeguards that are perhaps in place and uh we'll just work through it and we'll
at some point come to some resolution if we don't move forward. Um that's all I really have to say. So uh Brenda as proxy, do you have anything to say on behalf of uh Billy? >> No, I do not. >> Okay, then that's good. Then uh we have
a couple committee reports. uh education. Uh Miss Potter, >> yes, we met this morning 9:30 a.m. In attendance was myself, Miss Lee, Miss Rexford, Miss Trump, Dr. JW, Dr. Caro,
Dr. Labbera, Miss Failen, and Mr. Maluso. Um for the most part, we discussed uh policy P2365, acceptable use of generative AI. Um Mr. Mr. Maluso shared the process for creating the
proposed policy um with a PLC of 35 staff members reviewing numerous policies from other secondary and higher ed institutions. He reviewed the proposed revisions to the policy as per the board comments from the last meeting. Mr. Maluso spoke
of our appro approved AI platforms and their compliance with FURPA and Kappa AIdriven academic dishonesty. Miss Failen discussed how AIdriven academic dishonesty has been investigated and addressed over the past year and how we clarified the language in the proposed
policy aligning to this. Miss Failen advised she enforces integrity in all assignments and asks that students be transparent and disclose AI usage K through8 AI usage. Dr. JW explained that she has been in contact with local K through8 schools and had varied
responses to AI. While some have permitted limited use, some do not at all. Instruction for staff and students. Dr. Labbera explained there will be several opportunities to address AI use to faculty and students. Students will have the opportunity to learn about this
new policy via initial class meetings during the second week of school during homework home rooms on flex days and directly from teachers during the initial days of class. Faculty discussion for this topic will be planned as part of our opening day's
professional development. Dr. Drew also displayed a draft of the AI use scale image that will be shared with staff and students and posted in classrooms. Dr. Drew asked if the committee had any additional questions or concern and there concerns and there were none. Dr.
Dwitt also asked if the committee was supportive of keeping the policy 2365 on tonight's agenda. The committee members responded affirm affirmatively. Um, was there no update on P2361?
>> There's nothing written under I don't remember that acceptable use of computer networks, computer resources. >> I don't remember. Did we talk about that? >> We did. It was just that um, uh, Mr. Maluso updated them to include
additional smart devices. It used to just say phones, but now they're smart watches. Is that in there? Oh, if you go to the next P, that's both of them. That was the same update for both of those policies. >> Oh, okay. Gotcha. Oh, I didn't understand. Okay. Sorry about that. >> All right. So, P5516,
use of electronic communication and recording devices. These two policies were updated to include Okay, so that's P2361 and P5516. These two policies were update were updates to include an expansion from cell phones to include all smart
devices, watches, glasses, etc. The committee inquired to the recently passed law banning cell phone use throughout the entirety of the school day. Dr. Drew explained that the administration will be meeting this afternoon to review the model policy and NJOE FE frequently asked questions that
were released last week. Dr. Dwitt expressed frustration at the tight timeline between receiving the information and September implementation of the law. Both Dr. Dwitt and Dr. Lober expressed anticipated issues enforcing the new law. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
>> Anybody from the committee you want to >> any other comments? >> Any questions? >> Okay, Cal. >> Yeah, please. >> Don't be shy. Start now. >> Okay. Well, it's going to sound a little
strange. Um, did the committee talk at all about bad information because of AI that's finding its way into um fact or I can give you an example of it work
on a committee in town, a historic committee and um the count and we're reviewing a document put out by the county of Mars that they were pro were about to accept that somewhere along the line when they did the writing of it They just picked up data from all over
the place, which I guess they do right now with AI compared to All right, get to the point of the story. This document has the Whippony River going through Sterling. In case she notices, the Whip River does not go through Sterling. Um, which made me wonder if when we're
dealing with this, are we dealing with faulty information that because of AI is finding itself and a kid could so easily pick it up, put it in a report as fact. And >> you know what I'm saying? >> The internet's been doing that for years.
>> Well, I know we didn't discuss that. >> No, I'm not. I'm not either. But >> that's why part of our that's why media literacy is a standard that we're trying to educate students on. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Don't believe everything AI spits out at you. I mean, AI hallucinates. There's a
lot to that. >> Okay, and I get that and I understand. But here's a situation where one would think that you could rely on a county report that's specifically designed to talk about property in its county and faulty information is finding its way
into that. So, how prevalent is this? I'm I'm the dinosaur in this story, but if it hadn't just jumped up at me making me wonder how how are how how prevalent and how are we dealing with this world and there there were multiple things in
this particular report >> that because they explained to us that now they because of AI you just go out and you scan multiple sources and start accepting what's there as fact and it
finds its way into anyway there. >> So, you just made the case for why AI use isn't appropriate in a lot of situations and why we're trying to, you know, promote guidelines to help students number one become um ethical
and uh wise consumers and users of AI. Um but also that I the calculator example is the best one. If the answer to something, you know, the correct answer I know should be somewhere around 100 and a calculator spits out 2,000, I
may not have know what the exact answer should be, but I know it shouldn't be around 2,000 because I understand the underlying concepts. And that's why, you know, as a former math teacher, that's what I used to explain to the students. They'd get so frustrated when we go through, you know, a whole process and then I'd show them the button on their graphing calculator that that would do
it for them or, you know, how you could put it in there. But the the issue was they would have no idea you it's one wrong keystroke and you get a completely wrong answer that affects then seven other answers later on. And if they do they don't know that because they don't understand the process behind it then
you know they're they're way behind. And it's the same thing with with AI they're you know they need to know how to curate appropriate sources. Um, Carol, if you remember at the initial strategic planning session where we talked with Eleanor Roosevelt on AI, the facilitator
um carefully selected sources that the the um AI avatar was pulling from. It wasn't just like it was getting information from anywhere. The um Rich the the presenter had specifically had specified what the sources were to be for the AI Eleanor Roosevelt because
they were trusted historical sources. Um, so it there's a lot to it. While everyone thinks AI makes your life easier, it also can complicate it a lot if it gives you very wrong information. Um, so you know, it's that that's one of our jobs now is is to help these
students learn how to use it effectively, appropriately, and responsibly and ethically. And I I hear what you're saying, and I I understand that. But I guess my question is this is a situation where this should be
a reliable source and and professionals that I've I've talked to about it are saying they're finding it happening so much that sources that should be reliable sources that in the past you would have counted on are suddenly spitting out information
because of the way they're I don't know what the word is just >> pardon. The word in the AI context is hallucinating. It that's what it's called when it just makes stuff up. It's a hallucination. This particular example
was not something that's made up. It's something that showed up in a reliable source about Mars County a 100 years ago and got ignored by everyone and then um showed up again because of the the
what's the word? like harvesting harvesting data and it suddenly got showed up again and was reported on a document as though it was true. Anyway, >> yeah, Carol, just so you know, inaccuracy and misinformation exactly what you're talking is mentioned in this
in this policy. But I think Carol, are you saying that if some kid had to get information from the county of Mars and it was specifically this and they used the county of Mars, no AI, but actually use
that paper to take their get their information and then it comes into the classroom and the teacher goes, "Oh no, this is AI." You know, they could tell like how does a kid then defend himself? What does he do? bring in the paper showing that it was actually the
Department of New Jersey, County of Morris that wrote this and then >> So, is that what you're asking, Carol? >> Yeah. >> But the same is true if you go into the library and you pull an old school copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica off the shelf and it has a typo and you quote it
to say that there are 57 states because that's what the Encyclopedia Bratannica says. and then you get called out for your teacher from being wrong, you'd go and you'd pull the Encyclopedia Bratannica off the shelf and say, "This is the primary source that I relied upon." And if the error is in the source, then the errors in the source.
What you're saying is there was an underlying problem in that AI relied on a fake source. But if that then produced a document that was adopted by the county and a student used the document adopted by the county as a source and it
turned out it had an error in it, the child wouldn't get in trouble. They've used what should be a reliable primary source. Now, if the child just asked AI to tell it everything it needed to know for the for its assignment and it hallucinated and made stuff up and the
child did not ethically and responsibly verify the sources using reliable sources other than just what chat GPT spits out, then the child would be in trouble because we're trying to teach them the responsible and accountable and ethical use of AI.
If the source that they verify it in though happens to be that encyclopedia bratannica on the shelf and it also has the error in it, they wouldn't get in trouble because they've verified it in a primary source, right? >> I mean there's
>> it's coming up for the second. >> Yeah, I mean we can certainly talk about it now, but let me just make two comments if I may. >> No, no, Carol doing great. My view has always been there's no reason to let facts get in the way of a good story. That's number one. And number two, you say a lie enough, it
becomes the truth. It's just the way it is. And then that's just general comments. But again, to defend your issue, which I get, it's almost no defense because there's always there's always the potential of a primary source
being wrong. So that risk always exists no matter what you can pull a book off the shelf and if there's an error in the book and you're quoting even you know say you know Ernest Hemingway and whoever the source was misqued it or
short quoted it just like uh Shakespeare all the time is not necessarily misqued but short quoted the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers well if you read it in context that's not what it means but that's what you hear all the time so it's not wrong. It's just short quoted,
which is, you know, omission question. Is omission a lie or not? That's the way you look at it. But we see that all the time. But Dan, if you want to make a comment about AI since we're chatting about it, the policy start.
>> Sorry. >> Yeah. >> We personal as well, but we'll just jump over >> part of that committee. >> But Jenny, you're doing great. We'll just skip everything. >> I'm not sure. I mean it was part of the ad committee report so you could discuss it. >> No, we can discuss it now. It's not a problem.
>> Whatever. >> I mean are we just generally talking about AI? >> What was it? >> I would rather just go to the policy and talk about >> Okay, then fine. >> Okay, great. Uh are we done with that and we move on to personnel? Okay,
great. Uh Lori, >> thank you. Okay. The personnel committee met on uh yesterday morning at 8 a.m. President were Dr. Jwitt, Dr. Carol, board members Mr. Decker, Mr. Bernberg, Mr. Redenti, and myself. Uh we discussed
first policy 3351 which involves the new healthy workplace environment for the teaching staff members and policy 4351 which was for the support staff members. The committee reviewed the healthy workplace environment policies for
teaching staff members and support staff members. These policies establish a framework for maintaining a respectful, productive and professional work environment for school district employees. Dr. Caro explained that these policies, if if adopted, would align with the administration's goals of
supporting a productive climate within the school. Next, we discussed policy 1643, which is revised family leave. And basically, the only thing that changed was the state portion. Dr. Dr. Cow explained that the New Jersey Family
Leave Act law will change on July 17th, which is 3 days from today, requiring that the district's family leave policy be revised to include the changes in the law. Under the new New Jersey Family Leave Act, in order to be eligible for
leave, an employee must have worked for the employer for three months. Prior to the change in the law, employees needed to work for the employer for 12 months before being eligible. Also, under the new law, employees must work at least 250 hours in the past
year, whereas under the old law, employees needed to have worked a thousand hours. The federal family medical leave act has not changed. Uh we then discussed policy 2260 which is equity in school and classroom
practices. Dr. Carol shared that the revisions for policy 2260 equity in school and classroom practices include the provisions of New Jersey Administrative code 6A7-1.7c in case anybody needed it which were
originally located in the abolished regulation 2411. Policy 2260 now includes the entire code section of the New Jersey administrative code which will be included in a board approved policy to satisfy the requirements of the comprehensive equity
plan. We further then we went on to discuss the job description for the assistant superintendent. Uh we updated that we went over the update for hiring for the 2627. Dr. Carol provided the committee with an
update on leave replacement positions for the upcoming 2627 school year and an upcoming vacancy due to her retirement. And then we previewed the C items that are on the agenda for this evening. And the meeting ajourned at 8:42 a.m.
>> Thank you, Lori. Does anyone have anything to add? Anyone either on the committee or questions for the committee? Okay, we'll move into first opportunity for public comment. Uh, do not storm the podium, please. The first public comment
period will be limited to agenda items for this meeting only. The second public comment period will be open to any topic. All comments are limited to five minutes. If you could please make an orderly line, uh, sign in, that would be great. Okay. Do we have anybody who would like to make a public comment with
regard to agenda items only? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close the first opportunity for public comment. Boy, was I wrong. Okay, board discussion, uh, do you want to talk about the AI policy
now or wait until it comes? >> Oh, when you're going to when you >> He's saying once they do the motion to vote. >> That's what I'm asking. >> Okay. So, all right. So, is there any board discussion then? >> Okay, good. Let's move on then. >> Okay. >> I thought this would be the time for
that, but >> you make a motion discuss it. >> It could be done at any time. It's >> no right or wrong. >> Well, if you want to discuss it, >> I'd like to move items A1 to A7. >> Thank you.
>> Any discussion? Yeah, I'd like to ask the board to pull um the AI policy. >> Oh, sorry. I'll make a motion just to uh pull the AI policy out so we can uh vote on that separately.
>> Which number is that? I apologize. >> Are you saying pull or pull? >> Pull separate it out. >> Separate it. >> She made a motion. Pull it out of the floor. >> Yeah. >> I got 2365. Right. >> Okay. All right. So I move I'll amend my motion okay
>> to move A1 to A7 with the exception of the AI policy. >> I'll second that which is a just for the record it's A4 number 2365 excuse me acceptable use of generative artificial intelligence. Okay. I'd like
to also make a motion that 2260 be pulled for separate discussion. >> Equity >> equity and school classroom practices. >> Would you like to amend your motion, Trish? >> No, we can vote on Carol's motion
whether to amend my motion. >> Okay. >> If she has a second, I >> I'll second Carol's uh motion to uh pull that. >> Okay. All right. Let's uh vote on that motion first and then we'll uh
uh we'll come back to A through A7 accepting A4 2365. Okay. Is there any discussion with regard to the pending motion that's been second with regard to pulling A3 2260
from the motion that was made including that? Is there any discussion with regard to that issue? Okay, let's vote on that. Again, this vote is to separate that vote on A32260.
>> Okay, Brenda, did you get that? Sorry, moving a little quickly all of a sudden. >> I got it. >> Okay, great. All right, so let's vote on that. >> Again, a yay vote, a yes vote would be to pull that, right? Would be to separate out that we're just calling for
discussion. >> Yeah, just pulling the motion out of it. So you're doing a a grand motion of all these things, >> right? It would just be a separate vote if someone makes a motion to move it then. >> Okay. So a yes vote would be to pull that from the motion that Trisha made.
>> Yes. >> So let's vote on that. Okay. >> Roll call. >> You guys are really trying to make it hard on Brenda tonight, aren't you? >> I know. Sorry, Brenda. >> Sorry. Okay, Brenda, do a roll call on that, please. >> Mr. Mr. Decker. >> Yes.
>> Miss Feron Rosverski. >> Yeah. Just to be clear, I'm voting to remove which one from the >> A3 which is A3 2260. >> To remove it from >> from the motion that Trish made. >> Yes. >> Not to be to be voted on separately. Not
>> I want it to be voted on separately. >> Yeah. Not to be completely removed. >> Correct. No. Yes. No. No. That's not 100% correct. It's to be removed at some point. Then there would have to be a subsequent motion includ just to be clear. I hear what you're saying but
just to be clear. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm even more confused. >> Okay. I would I am voting to have it just removed from the the group. >> Got it. So that's a yes. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you,
>> Mr. Galla. >> Yes. Too much in my head. >> Miss Lee? >> Yes. >> Miss Potter? >> Yes. >> Miss Pasca? >> Yes. >> Miss Rexford? Yes, >> Mr. Dente. >> Yes, >> Mr. Trump. >> Yes, >> Mr. Roberg. >> No. >> Here, can I just pause for one second
that this Sorry to confuse this, but just to clarify for 2260. 2260 is an existing policy. It's being revised because of the policy we are abolishing. So, you're abolishing a policy before I I just want everyone
to be aware of that that um it's uh 2411 because that policy is being abolished. The language in that and it's being abolished because they are putting that into career and academ there's a new policy um career and academic counseling. They retitled it um because
they're they're they want to the the emphasis from the DOE is it's no longer guidance counseling. It's career and academic counseling, but there are pieces from that guidance and counseling regulation that is now needing needed to be put somewhere because it's a legally
based policy requirement that needs to go into equity in school and classroom practices. So, I just want to make everyone aware of that. These are all tied together, which is why you didn't we didn't abolish any of those policies last meeting because we needed to wait until the new ones were approved. So, just so you're aware, the the um
revisions to equity in school and classroom practices, it's not new. It's just taken from a different regulation and put into that policy. Um and it just has to do with equitable counseling for all students that we are to career give
them career and vocational information and counsel them without bias or based on stereotypes. That's what that information is. So I you know I don't know if that helps at all but just so everyone >> and it's a mandated policy. >> Yes. And that is >> so we need to prove this before you can
abolish the old one. >> No >> I mean not necessarily but I just want everyone to understand that that's what >> All right. Well we'll come back to that. So that motion carried. >> So then >> so the motion on the table right now is your motion which is A through A7 and A3
2260 has now been removed. in your motion. Your motion also the A the A6 2365 was already taken out. >> So that's what the vote is on. So we're voting on A7 accepting A3 2260 and A4
2365. >> But can can Dr. JW please clarify in A4? Are you saying that that when 2411 is in there that's actually a vote to resend 2411? We're so if you look at A6, we're
abolishing those three um regulations >> even though it says we're approving them. >> It's a Which one are I'm looking at? A6. >> Oh, A6. >> A6. Sorry. >> So that Yes. So 2411 where? Yes. So see I'm sorry policy and that's because they
changed the title of the policy to career education and academic counseling abolished the regulation associated with that policy because they put it into other places. Sorry, Trisha. I I wasn't clear on that before. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Point of order question. Just so we're
clear. >> Microphone. So just just so we're clear. Typically when we do an A1 through A7, it's called a consent agenda or a consent motion. And typically it's done with a straw poll or an agreement that
everything's agreed to it beforehand. The board has been pretty lax with consent agendas just being, you know, used all the time. Traditionally, we should be going and make a motion for blah blah blah blah blah each one and taking a vote on each one where so that we don't have this issue. So, we're kind
of we're kind of fast forwarding through the motion. So, although this is complicated because of the way we're doing it, it's mostly because we're kind of misusing the consent agenda idea uh for all these motions at once. I just want to make that point. So yeah, it
happens every once in a while. It's a little messy, but it's not a big deal, which is why, you know, somebody should be allowed to pull something out because they want to as a member just as a >> I don't think there's an issue. And again, >> it's more for uh
uh just for ease of time or speed up the time. And and uh again, if here we uh do a a roll call on every vote, not necessarily required that each agenda item would be a roll call vote,
>> which would also spear things, but because we do a roll call, if we did a roll call on 42 agenda items, we would be here all night. So, it's to facilitate. >> But again, there's what we're It's nothing wrong and we're just trying to >> move it along. Yeah, it gets a little
>> I'm good with that. I just like I said, I'm it makes me uncomfortable abolishing language we're required to have be if we're not. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> No, I'm saying if we go ahead and abolish it and then we we're pulling the other one separately. Let's say if we vote on that and it doesn't pass, we've
lost that money. >> That's why I make a motion to to pull A6 until we've decided how to deal with A3. That was why I was asking for the clarification. The thing to do though would be simply to vote on 2260 by
itself first. >> You does that make sense? If you vote on that first and it passes, then it's a move point. But if it were to fail, then you'd have to reconsider um >> A6. That's all. Are you moving to table
my motion because we have a motion pending? >> Which is I made a motion to pull A6. >> Yeah. Perfect. Then we can see you deal with yours. >> Okay. Is there a second on that? >> Second. >> Okay. So now the motion discussion.
Okay. >> Billy's never allowed to read. >> All right. So Brenda, this motion is uh >> A6. >> Pulling A6. Okay. >> She's got it. She's following. >> All right. Good. I'm just making sure. I apologize. >> She's cool. She's cool.
>> Sorry. >> She does this for all the time. Goes back. >> All right. Whatever. Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Decker, >> yes. >> Miss Ferrer Rosverki, >> yes. >> Mr. Hock, >> yes. >> Miss Lee, >> yes. >> Miss Potter, >> yes. >> Miss Prasa, >> yes.
>> Miss Rexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Dente, >> Mr. Raport, >> yes. >> Mr. Burberg, >> no. >> Okay. So now on the table is the modified motion that Miss Rexford had
brought. Would >> you like me to restate it? No. >> As modified? Let's vote on that unless people need that clarified again. I don't think we need to. Okay. So, let's vote on that and then we'll come back. Let's see if motion's pending for A3 2260 and if there's a motion for A4
2365. But right now, we're voting on fishes. Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Decker? >> Yes. >> Miss Fazeroski? >> Yes. >> Mr. Galla? >> Yes. >> Miss Lee? >> Yes. >> Miss Potter? >> Yes. >> Miss Prosa? >> Yes. >> Miss Rexford?
>> Yes. Mr. Dente, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Herberg, >> yes. Okay. Do I have a motion with respect to A32260 >> and A6? I'll make a motion for A3 2260 and A6
A6. >> Second. >> Okay. >> 2411. >> Yep. >> Right. Okay. Is there any discussion with respect to those mo those motions? Okay, roll call then on that. >> Mr. Decker, >> yes.
>> Miss Foserano Rasberki, >> yes. >> Mr. Galla, >> yes. >> Miss Lee, >> yes. >> Miss Potter, >> yes. >> Miss Pasca, >> yes. >> Miss Rexard, >> yes. >> Mr. Miss Redente, >> yes.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Burnberg. >> Yes. Yes. Now we get to >> Okay. >> Okay. Where do I hear something? I'll make a motion to >> Is there a motion to approve A423?
Sorry. Is there a motion to approve A42365? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Is there discussion with point of order? Point of order. There's modifications of the policy that were made today >> that that we just got today and it is
I'm going to guess 25% of the total the highlighted area. >> Oh, I mean I'm guessing I can't tell because I was just given this. I couldn't research it. >> No, you got an email. >> All got emails. >> I didn't get an email. >> Everybody got an email.
>> Oh, I I didn't receive the email yet. Maybe my email's slower. Who knows? >> Or maybe you were working. >> Yeah, maybe that actually had something to do. >> So, point of order. I mean, I think if the policy changes that much should give
some time for the members to take a look, research, and >> the policy didn't change. It was really just clarification of things that were brought up at the last meeting. But I did, as you heard from the ed committee minutes, I asked the education committee if they were still comfortable with having this on there tonight. They asked if I was going to send it out. So, you
know, that was a discussion that occurred at education committee >> on a point of order. It's the chair's call. >> It might be helpful for Dr. Joe to walk us through the changes. >> Well, I'll just make comment with regard to that. Dan, I appreciate your comments. Respect your comments.
uh this uh people have most of the people not all have had the opportunity to review the changes that were made since the first read. Uh again the education committee had a lengthy conversation with respect
to it this morning. Uh there was uh certainly discussion at the first read a few weeks ago. Um and I think uh attention was made and discussion with regard to those items and uh obviously changes were made to try to satisfy
uh and compromise with regard to the dissenting view with respect to those. Uh and if that has not been successfully done and if there is a motion and there's a vote, the people who are against it certainly have the right to go against and say no to the motion. So
I I don't think that uh that there's enough of a change and because by definition one could argue that it's not uncommon for us to have some sort of change between first and second reading. Doesn't always happen but there are some modifications clarifications and if we
go down the rabbit hole of uh every time there's any specific change uh that's not going to serve us well with regard to whether this passes or not. And if it does pass uh as we've done in the past and we actually just did tonight, we've
abolished policies and if we have to uh correct certain policies and again all I keep hearing with respect to this specific policy that there's one specific paragraph that everyone seems there's one paragraph that the issues
seem to arise and and uh I don't know if we've come to a common consensus but Again, as I alluded to earlier, we are in the solution business, not in the problem business. People have identified the problem, but there yet to be a
solution given with regard to how we as the, you know, from the administrative administrative side, teacher and faculty and staff side deal with potential abuses of the use of AI. Um so I am
comfortable moving forward but again if it doesn't pass it doesn't pass but let that be the will of the board. >> Okay but so noted. >> Okay. >> Um >> where are we? >> I'll just make if you don't mind you
know the motions >> motions on the table. >> Right. So comments. >> Okay. Perfect. >> So um last we spoke um as a board there was a couple big issues that came up. One was the um the miracle AI detector
which uh seems to be a uh removed recently removed from the policy I suppose this morning. Um which then goes to and this is the fall like the cascading effect of the magic AI AI
detector uh now becomes the teacher becomes the magic AI detector. um which I think is just unfortunate for the teacher because that's just not fair. And secondly, the idea that um a a teacher is going to understand
everything there is to know about AI and divine uh what is AI, what is improper is just not a fair thing to put on the teachers with and I want to make this very clear with the understanding that the punishment could be severe. Now if
there's no punishment, you know, then say lovey. But if the punishment is severe and you're letting the teacher be the judge, jury, executioner, and in that in quotes, I say that in quotes. I do not mean that literally. Um, then I I think it's it's
this is super inappropriate. If it's a committee or policy that reviews this stuff, even then I would object to it because uh as much as Michael thinks that AI is the calculator, it's not. It is
electricity, it is the industrial revolution, it is much much larger than a than something that adds 2 plus two. It is a fundamental change in society. It is massively uh disruptive. It is
something that we need to encourage not discourage. So you're talking about let's just talk go into the solution business. I'm going to just put out there the Jew AI policy and you >> Liz did a great job. She said exactly what we should have as a policy. It's
simple. It's understandable and I think it's super effective and it's simply this. AI out of school, no AI in school, and that's it. It's really simple. It's understandable. There is no divining of
who cheated or looked at something AI or anything like that. Is literally AI out of school, no AI in school. >> Let me just let me question one thing if I may. So just to be clear, AI out of
school means you could do whatever you want out of school. AI it, which means write the paper, do whatever you want. And so now, so if Dr. Caro or Dr. Jew when they wrote their dissertation because that was out of school. They
could have gone on chat GPT put in the their you know their thesis and what and have that generated hand that in whether they did the work or didn't do the work that would be okay this was done. >> I'm just curious. Okay, let me just
let's follow that up because Carol brought up a really good >> of course she did >> situation and that is somebody supposedly in the county of Mars went to AI and created a document that was flawed. the person that then took that flawed
out of school AI use in that in this context and then presented it to a nonAI environment meaning the legal distribution of that information was flawed and needs to learn that they need to review what AI gives them. If you're
asking me if a doctoral um candidate shouldn't use AI, I think that's idiocy an idiot. like it's crazy. You have to use AI all the time on every object on every subject that you're using to be the smartest to be the best. And if
you're not, you're you're seeding being the best. So yes, you you use AI as a tool. You have to review it and create your own part of that, but then you put it in and but you're responsible for what you put in. >> So I just want to respond since I'm
being sort of quoted in what I said and didn't say. Um the the big assumption we're making here is that our students know how to use AI and they do not they do not know how to use it responsibly. They don't know that that when they use it they need to site that they're using it. Um they haven't learned all of that
yet. It's this isn't new. This is when you know a student did their first book report and copied their entire report was you know quotes from the book and you know they learned first they didn't have quotes around it then they thought if I just put quotes around it then I'm okay. You know that we need to teach them ethical use. We also, you know,
what was um revised in the policy was clarifying language. We had a discussion last time about what is personally identifiable information. You should not be putting somebody's social security number into an AI uh platform. You should not be putting your teacher's
image into an AI platform. Uh you know, that's why we we highlighted that. But students don't necessarily realize the consequences of that or the implications of that. So, it's our job to educate them about that. what I was talking about last meeting was adjusting our assessment, our approach to assessment,
which is what the teachers worked on this year. Um, I I don't know how else to say this, like I know this AI policy hasn't been approved. We've already been implementing it for a year. Um, because that's how we came to the policy and it's all based on our integrity policy.
It's just now AI related integrity violations are part of our integrity policy, but because there's so much more related to AI, that's why it needs its own policy. >> Liz, how many people got punished by using AI? >> The AI. Let me just finish my the the um
of what I wanted to to make sure I clarify the point of this too. A an AI detector. We we're not we're not using an AI detector to determine if something was AI generated. What our practice for when a student puts something in to turn
it in, a teacher just uses 20% as the benchmark where if it comes back that 20% of the paper has been, you know, was from another source. The teacher doesn't just say, "Oh, that's it. Okay, the, you know, the the student gets a zero." It's, "Okay, let me look at this further. I'm going to look at the
student's sources, look at the student's revision history, meet with the student, um, and if they can, you know, if they determine that, okay, it is authentic. turned it in, you know, was was not correct. Good. If they determine that they think the student did plagiarize it, they complete a report of
misconduct. They and they do that with the supervisor that then goes through due process. That goes to our vice principal who then does an investigation. That's where the student gets their due process. That is all outlined. It's actually in this policy that we kind of glanced over that part last time, but there's a whole due
process part in here. Nowhere does it say the teacher makes all of these decisions. It actually says educators throughout here because it's a collaborative process and there have been times where the initial ROM has been overturned because when we've done further investigation we've determined
that the work was authenticated. Um so there's a lot to this and we're we are really trying to help students and there is the the discipline for this is the same as our progressive discipline for any integrity policy violations which actually was discussed in ed committee
probably about a year or so ago. Um but you know that was the product of several years of work with with a lot of teachers. Um and that is all clearly outlined in our student handbook. So this is just adding inappropriate AI use, lack of appropriate AI citation. So we're, you know, we're not saying
students should not be using AI where it's just like we're not saying students should not be using books to help them, you know, write a report, but they need to know how to site it appropriately. They need to know that an encyclopedia bratannica from 50 years ago is not an accurate source that they need to use more recent resources. So that's what
this is all about and it's we we need something to for the teachers and the students and the parents to go by. Um so that's where all of this came. >> Let me let me just jump in for a second. What you just described is like um a li
you you picturing AI like a librarian handing out books and information. That's what Google was. AI is not that. A >> AI is is the complete thought as derivative of a prompt. And that
complete thought as a derivative prompt includes inferences of all knowledge that's ever been put on paper. This is not just citing sources. This is that that's that's Google. That's 2006
Google. AI is not something that's been around for a while. AI in the last 3 months is a completely different animal than it was a year ago. I mean that it just it's mindblowing how
complete the response to a prompt and everything is. So like we can't just say it's just citing it. We have to do proper. I totally agree. I didn't say that. The other thing say I would just >> I did not I just Dan I need to clarify I didn't say any of that. >> I'm commenting and also I just want to
say I'm not I'm not absolutely not against any improper use of AI aka images PII etc etc. That's not what this discussion is about. And if it was whittleled down to just improper use of AI with PII I don't think there'd be
much of a discussion here. I I'm I'm specifically specifically >> what's PII first of all? Sorry. personally identifiable information. >> Personal identif identifiable information like your social security number, your face, that that stuff. Absolutely. Like that's a teaching
moment. Absolutely. 100%. So that's not I I think that was brought up last time and that to me that's just absolutely true and should be in any policy. So that's >> So are you advocating for students should be able to use generative AI
without restriction for school work or that they should not be allowed to use generative AI at all for school work? It's unclear to me what you're advocating for. So, what I'm what I'm advocating for is the realization that
the idea that we're going to be able to tell whether somebody used AI at home or not is just not a real is not a really good thing to do. And specifically, I I say this, um
I I'm not particularly a great English student. I don't think it surprising. I am much better than I was, right? I got better along the way because I own a bunch of newspapers and I had to write a bunch of articles and blah blah blah. So, my writing got a little bit better.
If the writing I take today and I put it in is it AI or is it not as a fairly poor English writer, I get about 45% most likely AI. for a very good student, for someone who has concise vocabulary,
uh, thought process, being able to put down the thing, they're going to get an 80 90% AI driven because they're correct and good. So, the the idea that somebody and and it would one of the comments was, hey, if somebody uses vocabulary that they don't usually use or something
like that, it's like a trigger to say that they're out. If somebody expands their vocabulary, however they do it, it's a good thing. So that that's the point. It's not that they don't understand. So to answer your question, AI out of school, meaning do your research, form your thoughts, get your
paper, but when you do the math test, but when you do the English writing, when you're in school, there's no AI. You don't have that crutch. You have to stand on the thought processes that you got from AI prior. That's my thought. say, >> but in terms of the in terms of the the
language in the So, if you use the word superfluous in an essay and I meet with you because I'm just concerned, did you really write this? And you don't you can't tell me what that word means. That's what we're talking about. That's where a teacher is going to read something and say, "Okay, let me meet with this student and actually see if they can explain to me where this came
from, what their thought process was." And that's what it says in the policy. If if we suspect it, it's okay. Then we pull the thread and we meet with the student and sometimes it's okay, great. the student really did a lot of research on this, they understand it. If the student looks at you and has no idea,
there was just a huge article about a Brown University professor where students all dropped the class once they found out the the final exam was going to be in class instead of take-home. >> Yes, I think that's great. >> And so because they all used because they didn't know and the ones who took it
>> did historically worse than any other final exam because they didn't know the information wouldn't run away from that. They would say, "Oh, this is just like high school. I'm ready. So it would be preparing that for that situation. >> I I'm very simple. I look at AI and obviously it's
different but I've been around for a long time so I've seen a lot of technological advances. I wasn't there in the 1850s during the industrial revolution but I actually wrote a paper on it. You sure? >> Believe it or not whatever. >> Uh >> I think I read >> I got a good grade on. So there's two
way well there's probably multiple ways but I look at AI two simple things you write a paper you feed it in and then it comes out it makes the paper better more literate let's just say then there's the other AI which you feed
10 different questions into and it writes the paper for you right so the question is doing it at home question always comes back to me is that cheating not cheating and do we allow cheating because that at the end of the day is
the question is I I see the enhancing I don't necessarily have an issue with it but when you just feed in say you wanted to write a paper on the industrial revolution you put it and then that gives you a paper in my mind that's cheating I could be wrong I remember the
movie Back to school which I know you do where Ronnie Dangerfield hired Kurt Vonagget to write his English paper and Kurt right didn't do well and Kurt right and Kurt was there he goes what do you So, you could easily go on to AI, get your Kurt Vonagget paper, and have the
paper that Kurt wrote or anyone else write and hand it in. Now, what you said was if it's done at home, that's okay. I got an issue with that. >> Well, because then just don't make that homework. >> Dan, what if I can ask you, what is the
fear of this policy if you can have follow the the trail, right? Like we talked about this. So, if a student does feed a bunch of stuff in and then gets this beautiful paper written versus them writing it, putting it into AI and having AI make it sound nicer. If they
can prove their work or show their work, which is what I think Liz is talking about, then what's the fear of having this policy? >> Great question. Great question. I This is my biggest fear with this policy. And it's not I I I love the idea that we're
discussing AI and it's something I brought up many times over the last three or four years, but we need to dive into this. We need to make classes on it. We need to do all those things on ethics and everything else too. But and this is where I just put a put the brakes on. If we are going to accuse
somebody, a student, a freshman, a shy freshman who's really blooming and becoming a great student, and they get accused of using AI because they're becoming smarter, and then they become on the defensive, and they're they're
guilty until proven innocent. And I just cannot go down that road for any student in this atmosphere at all. To be clear, >> you want us to abolish the policy that currently exists with respect to cheating because that same issue arises, >> right?
>> Just to be clear, >> right? Because we have a policy that talks about >> No, I'm not. Cheating is defined by not doing the rules. So if you define, >> we're making a rule. >> No, I if you if a teacher defines a rule, right, and you violate that rule, so you could have one teacher saying use
AI for everything and another teacher saying don't use AI for anything. If cheating would only be using AI for the teacher that use it, not the other one. So cheating is defined by the rules. What we're doing here is putting the book ends on the rules to say, "Hey, we
can't really tell if someone's cheating or not because AI's gotten that good." And it has. It's passed the touring test easily. So we don't know whether it's human or not human. And so that that's where my fear is. If there was no I will tell you if there's no punishment to this, then fine. the we're getting to
the AI detection piece is like that is such a minuscule part of this. I'm talking about a student who they feed their math problems into AI, then they take a quiz in class and fail the quiz because they haven't done any of the homework themselves because they fed it through AI. >> Isn't that the punishment?
>> So, but that this is all that's why I'm saying the AI detector piece like forget about that. We may let's say we're not even using that. I our teachers rarely use that. It's more they get something they and then they ask the student questions about you know oh well okay so
tell me a little bit about uh you know that year of of of that you talked about in your paper and and they just sit sit and look at you and they're like uh let me see what I wrote. If you actually wrote it you should be able to speak to it and understand it or show me the steps you know that you used to solve this math problem. And if the student
sits there and looks at you and they allegedly did it, that's what we're talking about because we need to have a way of ensuring they're they're learning a skill. So, it's not the the AI detector piece that is like such a minimal part of this as just something
like turn it in that teachers use as a first, you know, just kind of uh tester to say, "Okay, these are the ones we need to take a closer look at." Well, >> so and I'm sorry if that didn't, you know, if that came across differently at the last meeting, but that's such a little piece to it that that's not anything we're depending on.
>> Well, that was removed. The AI detector piece was removed. >> Yeah. So, that's not an issue. >> I mean, I feel like it's the same thing if a if a kid who is not an A student takes a test and gets a 100, right, where that kid has never gotten a 100.
Clearly, some alarms are going to go off. Did this kid cheat? How did he get 100? So, you're going to ask him some questions, right? You're not going to just be like, "You cheated." You're going to follow up. You're going to have him do some of the questions again. Maybe retake the test. These are things that are already in place when we think
someone's cheating. This is just a version of, you know, followup. >> My question would be, was that test taken in school? >> Aren't most tests taken in school? My point, no AI, no AI in school, >> but you can still AI is not going to
help you cheat. >> There are other ways to cheat in school. Look at that. That would be not allowed. That's against the rules. That would be >> I think part of part of the policy is helping to guide how to learn how to use AI in school which is why certain
teachers and certain um projects or certain assignments have different levels of what they will allow to use AI so that they can start teaching the kids how to use it responsibly when it's done irresponsibly. So if you don't have any sort of guidelines policy then it's really hard to start implementing that
into the school learning process. I >> or maybe we just break it down and have part of this policy an A and a B and where it is that the email inputting that kind of stuff is the first part of the policy that we probably all would
approve and then the second part is the other stuff that we're kind of up in the air about because I think we all agree >> that putting email addresses in social security pictures whatever that I think that is we all are 100% in agreement with. I think it's the other thing on
the punishment part that is what >> the the the consequences aren't even in here. The consequences refer to our student handbook, which is what we apply for everything. >> Yeah. I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is it's hard to figure out if a
kid used AI. So, we're not even going to try to call out inappropriate use of AI. >> I cannot fathom that being our policy. >> He's not saying inappropriate. No, he just agreed with me. >> Inappropriate use. You're not going to say put a picture of someone and have it. >> No, no, no,
>> no. I'm not talking about that inappropriate >> in the work, >> right? >> No, I'm not talking about inappropriate use is inappropriate use. That's a different >> I'm taking a creative writing class. I go home, I write my creative writing paper, I turn my creative writing paper
in. It is 100% chat GPT garbage. According to Mr. Gallic. It is too hard for anybody to determine whether that is chat GPT garbage. Even though my teacher knows my style, knows my vocabulary, knows my abilities up to this point,
recognizes some of the language in it from the trashy Harley Quinn romances that have been fed into chat GPT. It is 100% not my work product. And if someone were to simply ask me, I would say no, I didn't write it. Doesn't matter. It's too hard to tell whether
that's AI and therefore >> I can turn that in for a full grade for my creative writing class >> based on the prompts you put in. You can put in say I'm a ninth grader with terrible English and write me this paper
and have this this and this and they will come up and do it and you won't be able to tell that. >> So you have no revision history, no notes, no outline. Yeah, you can do it on your second computer and then send >> a student. But that's why but that's what there's timestamping on it. I mean,
we've actually had our All right. I We're getting into the weeds here, but this is ridiculous. I mean, you're just saying, is it harder? >> Yes. >> Is it harder to detect AI? >> It's possible. It's possible. >> We disagree.
>> Okay. Okay. >> So, I I And if that's the fundamental disagreement, should we maybe just take a vote? I make a motion to approve A4 policy 2365 acceptable use of generative artificial intelligence. >> Second.
>> Any further discussion? F roll call please. >> Mr. Decker. >> Yes. >> Miss Fazerosi. >> No. Mr. Gallic. Ju just before I vote, the first kid who
prompts well enough to get kicked out, expelled from this high school, I will hire immediately. No. >> Miss Lee, >> I think Elon Musk will take him first, >> but I say no. Also, >> Miss Potter,
>> yes. >> Miss Pasa, >> no. >> Miss Rexert, >> yes. >> Mr. Dente, >> yes. >> Miss Rimpfor, >> yes. Mr. Fernberg. >> Yes. >> Make a motion to move A8 to A1.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Discussion. Roll call. >> Mr. Decker. >> Yes. >> Miss Fazeron Roseki. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallic. >> Yes. >> Miss Lee? >> Yes. >> Miss Fa? >> Yes. >> Miss Rexford?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Fente? >> Yes. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Burberg, >> yes. >> Make a motion to move C1 through C11. >> Second. >> I would I would like to make a motion to
remove C3 out of that block. >> Second. >> Any discussion with respect to that? >> Yeah, I I think there was we just need an explanation. why >> talk we're making a new >> um a new position and it needs to be clearly understood. >> Thank you for bringing that up. Um
Katherine had mentioned that. So as everyone recalls a year ago we eliminated the director of curriculum position. So following that uh we had a discussion as a board and with personnel committee that we are looking to restructure central office. So, we are going to create the assistant
superintendent position and we will ultimately no longer have a director of human resources and professional development position. So, we are not adding an administrative position. We are restructuring central office. So, I'm glad you brought that up because I don't want anyone out there thinking that after we had a very lively budget
discussion, tough budget year that we are adding a position. So, thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Alex. So, we could highlight that. I remember discussing this I want to say two meetings ago and I thought it was a good discussion and I'm I'm certainly in favor of those >> great. Thank you. Thank you for bringing
that up. >> So that being said, Carol, do you still want to pull it? >> I didn't pull it. >> Oh, Lori. Sorry. >> Yes. Someone went down here. >> Okay, great. All right, let's vote on that. >> Vote on. >> Yep.
>> Mr. Decker. >> No. Miss Falserano Rosmeri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallic. >> Yes. First, a member could pull a >> Miss Lee. >> Yes. >> Miss Potter.
>> No. >> Miss Proa. >> Yes. >> M. Rexford. >> No. >> Mr. Rede. >> No. >> Mr. Report. >> Yes. >> Mr. Berber. >> Yes.
Okay. Uh, so that's now pulled from C1 through uh, C11. So it's C1 through 11, not C3. >> Any further discussion? >> Okay, let's roll call. C1 2 4 through 11.
>> Mr. Decker, >> yes. >> Miss Falsero Roski, >> yes. >> Mr. Galla, >> yes. >> Miss Lee, >> yes. >> Miss Potter, >> yes. >> Miss Prosa, >> yes. Mr. Rexford, >> yes. >> Mr. Dente, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrimort, >> yes. >> Mr. Burnberg,
>> yes. >> Make a motion to approve C3. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Roll call. >> Mr. Decker? >> Yes. >> Miss Falserki? >> No. >> Mr. Galla? >> Yes. Specifically because it doesn't
increase any. >> Miss Lee? >> Yes. >> Miss Potter? >> Yes. >> Miss Pasa? >> Yes. Mr. Rexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Dente, >> yes. >> Mr. Rimpor, >> yes. >> Mr. Burberg, >> yes.
>> Make a motion to D1 through D8. >> Second. >> And >> sorry, add D15 and D15. >> Second. >> Any discussion with respect to those?
Roll call. >> Mr. Decker. >> Yes. Miss Ferono Murski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Galla, >> yes. >> Miss Lee, >> yes. >> Miss Potter, >> yes. >> Miss Prosa, >> yes. >> M Miss Rexford, >> yes. >> Miss Redente, >> yes. >> Mr. Report,
>> yes. >> Mr. Verberg, >> yes. >> Motion to move D9 >> through D14. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Roll call. >> Mr. Decker.
>> Yes. Miss Fazerano Rosmerski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Galla, >> yes. >> Miss Lee, >> yes. >> Miss Proa, >> yes. >> Miss Rexford, >> yes. >> Miss Redente, >> yes. >> Mr. Report, >> yes. >> Mr. Verberg, >> yes. >> Okay. Second opportunity for public
comment. Comments can be made on any item with regard to the district and they're not limited to the agenda items which have now taken their course. Uh, do we have any uh comments? Okay. >> Yes. No, no, we do. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> She was, you know, she got lulled into the rhythm. >> Gotta move quick. >> Um, hi, Marissa Walsh, president of the Wong Hills Regional Education Association. Um, I just wanted to let the board know that uh back in April, our very own Michael Pasani was uh
awarded the Somerset County Education Association ESP of the Year, and he is now in the running for the statewide ESP of the year, which is the same award that Moren Kelly won um in 2024. So, it's due to his great work, his, you
know, importance with morale and, you know, schoolwide climate. So it just it some good news to share with you all and you know tell them congrats if you see him >> the patron of watch hills. >> Is there anything we can do to help that cause of winning the state award? >> I wrote him a great wreck and if you
want to write anything to uh the president Steve Vy about what a great asset he is. Send a letter >> Liz. Take care. >> Thanks for sharing that. So that's awesome. >> Thank you. >> Good for him. >> Excellent. >> And good for us because we have him. >> All right. Before I quickly close out
second round of public comment, does anyone else have any public comments? >> Oh, okay. None. All right. So, we're going to close that round. Do we have any other business to discuss this evening? Anyone like to share anything? Great. I will entertain a motion to adjurnn.
>> So, move. >> Seconded. All those in favor? I. >> We are adjourned. Thank you. So,