Thank you. I would like to welcome everyone. Apologies that we're just a tad behind. But let's
go ahead and get started because we've got a pretty full agenda today. I'm Janet Graham
and I am the chair of the policy committee and I also represent District 7, which is Conway
and Portions of Carolina Forest. And I would ask each board member around the horseshoe
to introduce yourselves, please. My name is David Cook. I represent District 1 and I am
a member of the policy committee. Debbie Edmonds, District 2. Tracy Winters, District 3, and
I serve on the policy committee. Howard Barnard, District 5. Neil James, District 10.
Pam Dawson, District 6. Melanie Wellens, District 8, committee member. James Edwards,
District 9. And Eddie Ingraminterum, Superintendent. I messed up the first time, so. Well, Pam,
Lord Brooks. Tyler Nolemley, sorry. Thank you. Okay. Do we, if everybody's had a chance
to review the agenda, do we have a motion to approve?
So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there, are there any, is there anybody
against it or do we have any discussion? Okay, so moved. If everyone's had a chance
to review the minutes, we will ask for an approval, but you should have received
just a few minutes ago the updated version that has some minor typographical corrections
on it. I can tell you what they are if you want me to. It's just some wording. Or if
you want to, you can give us a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion
to approve and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye's had it. Okay. For
our new business, Mr. Lee James is going to come before us and give us a review of
some of our results and some of the wording that we may need to shore up in that.
Thank you. So good evening. I'm here to discuss just some, some slight modifications
that I'd like to recommend for our results, more governance policies to bring them
in line with what our current practices are. I'll go through each individually. You'll
see there are very minor changes with the exception of R7. So R1 Literacy. In R1
Literacy, it talks about the overall student performance in the current policy. The
overall student performance will meet or exceed the district consolidated goals.
You'll see the majority of these changes are related to those district consolidated
goals. Those goals are no longer a part of our policy manual. What we are
instead relying on are our strategic, strategic plan performance goals. So our
strategic plan is a document that is updated every year and is recreated or
redeveloped every five years. So that's a part of district practices, part of our
practices in learning services and in other divisions because it affects
everyone. So that will always be up to date and I would recommend that we use
that as the comparison for these results reports. You'll see the same language
in R2 Numeracy, just replacing district consolidated goals with strategic
plan performance goals in R3 Science and in R4 Social Studies. I did not see the
need for amendments for R5 or R6. Those do not relate to any of these goals in
our reports on a variety of areas that are not commonly measured for
accountability. The biggest change that I would like to recommend is actually in
R7, I'm trying to get it to fit on one page here. In R7, current policy states
that college and career readiness will be measured using the on-time graduation
rate and the composite SAT and ACT scores. Since the writing of this
policy, the South Carolina Department of Education has included in its
accountability system for high schools a definition of college and career
readiness which actually relies on I think eight different indicators. So we no
longer have the need to designate what it is whenever it's defined for our
schools and their accountability if you choose to do so. So what I'm
recommending that language be changed to is that the college and career
readiness will be measured using the criteria set forth by the South
Carolina Department of Education Accountability Manual. That will bring
in line with what our schools are responsible for and their efforts. The
college and career readiness rate will meet or exceed the strategic plan
performance goals baseline measure. I didn't want to ignore graduation
rate entirely so I would like to propose leaving that in as a very
important metric for us and the on-time graduation rate will meet
or exceed the strategic plan performance goals baseline measure. SAT and
ACT composite scores are not, they are part of college and career readiness
and will still continue to be reported but it's not necessarily to
stand alone because there's so many other ways kids can become college and
career readiness. So I did recommend that we take that out and those are
the policy changes that I would recommend. Any questions?
Any questions from our committee members? No questions but you know once
again as you did in the other presentation appreciate this time and
going through this and especially the college and career readiness
because recognizing that there are several different ways to measure
that performance but thank you sir. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Cook for
reminding me to thank him for that because we've talked and there's a lot
of work that goes into this so thank you. Oh I'm sorry. Mr. James you
know how many pages are in that plan? Or in which strategic plan?
107? 3. 173? 173 excuse me that was all. It's rather extensive. Yeah that's a
huge. It is. What's in there is excellent. There needs to be some way we
can pull that out. Putting in the policy manual or something so you can
refer to that without having to go to a 173 page document. We do have an
area on our accountability website where we have just the strategic plan
performance goals listed entirely separately so you're correct. It is a
very large document. It has many elements that are required from the
state and of course it is rather robust even in comparison to others. I'm
sorry. A lot of board work to play. But we have already separated out
performance goals since that's what this part focuses on. I certainly don't have
any problem with you changing it. I just hate to see us know the policy
manual is way too long and now we've got a strategic plan that's
underneath 173 pages long. It should be getting shorter not longer. I hope that
our next strategic plan cycle results in a more abbreviated plan. Thank you
very much. Mr. James. That's like that's a lot of shot. It is just a
comment on getting more verbose when we're going to get shorter.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. James. Thank you so
much. This now is my understanding that this will sync us up with the
reports that you provide us on the our report will now be synced directly to
the strategic plan performance goals. We know that we have a measurement
objective and in that measurement objective if I'm not mistaken don't
we have year over year incremental gains embedded in those strategic
performance goals on many of the. We do. All of these were written as
comparison to the baseline measure we talked about last time about the
importance of having lofty goals for us to strive to attain. And we also
talked about how we should compare itself to show the growth to show how we
have grown. So every time that I make a report for a results report I
include that information in there. Great. I'm very very pleased to see
that we are eliminating the confusion of having the district consolidated
goals which are no longer in many cases applicable. Thank you so much for
going to the trouble of syncing this up. Thank you. Thank you. Next on our
agenda is G C one board self assessment. And we have discussed this several
times and you have received in your packet a sample self assessment that
from the South Carolina School Board Association. I did not receive any
other samples from any board members. So if everybody's had a chance to look at
this. Do any of our committee members have any discussion on this item. Yes,
sir. Mr. Cook. So one I just you know we've discussed this before. I like
anything with metrics kind of makes things easy for me. I like to score
out. And I think that this is very thorough. I believe that it really it runs
through pretty much everything in the G C's all the way down and then also to be
able to have a little bit of narrative to go along with it. I think it just
pulls it all together. I like this personally. I would hope that everybody
else who is if hopefully everybody's had a chance to look at this. We are
supposed to do this before I think our first meeting in January. So we really
need to get this done so that we all can this fill out this form and assess
ourselves. And we also need to make sure that when we do it that we get
the results back in a timely manner and that we are meeting to discuss what those
results are. So that will come later, I suppose, but is is the we're going to
what I propose is that we if we adopt this that we be ready in January at our
first meeting to do this assessment.
Yes, sir. And if I could, Madam Chairman, so I'm guessing that we're all going to do
one. Yes, then we're going to sit down at the meeting and come together. Somebody
has to compile it. Great. And then give it to us. Give us a chance to look it
over. And then we need to have a discussion. Thank you. Okay.
Yes, ma'am. Well, no board members have any committee members have any any other
comment? Yes, ma'am. Under each in our policy manual under each one, almost all of
them like under GC2, GC3, there are requirements for these board self
assessments. So since in the policy manual, it says, for example, we're
supposed to do a board self assessment pertinent pertinent to governing
commitments. That's GC2. And then we're supposed to do one under GC3 pertinent
to board job description, one under GC4 pertinent to officers role. So is the
proposal that we're going to use the same board self assessment for each one
of the board self assessments that are called out under each one of the
governance culture items? If I'm understanding what you're asking, are
you asking if we're going to do one for each one of those? Are we going to use
this one document for all of that? That's the question. Okay, I am assuming
that we're going to use one document for all of that. And if anybody has
anything that they want to single out, there's some space at the end that
you can say, well, none of this was addressed in this document. And I
would like to see this addressed. That would be my suggestion. And do we have
clarification on who specifically is going to be tasked with compiling the
results and presenting the report? I was assuming it would be Amanda. She's
not here. There she is. Amanda's volunteering. She's got her hand up.
That was my assumption.
Does anybody have any objection to that?
Thank you so much. Thank you.
Okay, we're now down to GC eight item number three, which is in GC 10, if
applicable, board member employment slash subcontracting with Ori County
schools. And Ms. Wellens will be discussing that with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to bring it to the policy
committee's attention that we currently have no wording. And thank
you, Kenny, for providing the information that you've provided to
us. No wording in our in GC eight under governments policies about board
members working directly for Ori County schools and or subcontractors.
Um, and according to the information that Kenny provided 59, 19, 300, um, they
are not permitted, correct, Kenny?
Good evening. Yes, I can share information with you in reference to this. There's a South
Carolina Code of Law section 5919-300, which talks about board members receiving pay as
a teacher. It says it shall be unlawful for a school trustee to receive pay as a teacher
of a free public school that is located in the same district of which such person is
a trustee. So the law is in place in reference to receiving pay, and that would be all inclusive
pay coming directly from the district or pay coming through a third party. What also we
have in researching this particular topic, there is a South Carolina Attorney General's
opinion that is dated January 5, 2016 that also talks about this type of relationship
in reference to what is described, legal term described as master-servant relationship
or one party having authority over another. And it also incorporates not only a teacher
role but other roles that may be within a school system from an employee standpoint.
And also in looking at this, I have looked at language from other school boards in the
state of South Carolina to make sure that whatever language is suggested here mirrors
or is similar to those, and I have some suggested language for you for consideration in reference
to it, which will include not only what the statute says but expands it for those that
need a further definition of clarification. Do you have those languages now? Yes, I do.
Again, this is the law portion of it. And this is a portion that I was able to find in
some other school board policies in South Carolina where it expands it not only, again,
for just teacher but it also talks about otherwise being employed in other positions
and that it's irrelevant as to the source of the pay if it's coming directly from the
district or third party. This particular school board did include temporary agencies when
it comes to substituting teachers, substitutes for other employment pieces as well. And
it talks about whether someone is a volunteer and defines whether what that is, if you're
in a volunteer capacity which you are having responsibilities or overseeing certain aspects
of the district or if you are responding to or directly report to superintendent, principal,
a district or school administrator, those types of things. So, again, this is extracted
from information from the law but also from the Attorney General's opinion that was
established in 2016.
Okay. So, essentially what we're saying is any board member who is a seated board member
enters into conflict of interest if you are being paid by the district in which you sit on the board.
That's specifically with the law and right. And then the Attorney General expands it so the
pay element is also out of the question as far as coming from either the district or third party
but also if you're not getting paid. It's a volunteer. A volunteer in a position of some
capacity within the system that it could in essence create a conflict of interest relationship
with that being in that position paid or not paid because you also in a higher position
by being a board member. That's the master servant. Relationship.
Okay. Any committee members have any questions or commentary on that? Yes, sir. Mr. Cook.
Thank you for all your clarification, Kenny. I want to go back to the volunteering a little bit.
So, as I look through this and this is something that I stopped doing when I got on the board
that I want to make the volunteers say for the band, you know, if I'm working for the band,
if you really look down and get into this, any principals, athletic director or other school
or district administrator, I guess even volunteering for the band could be considered
under this, come under this. Is that correct? It could, sir. Again, the impression that you
would have in your role, dual roles could create a potential conflict. Now, say for example,
if you're volunteering on the day that you're reading to kids, that's a little bit different.
It's not a position that you would have, like you're volunteering to help
do something established with a specific group or activity. Let's say they gave me
a responsibility to watch this group and be responsible for that group. That's kind of...
Yeah, right. Like you being a chaperone, that type of thing, that might be one of those
issues that could be a conflict of interest. But if the group is assigned to clean the road
for Adopt a Highway and you volunteer in that capacity, that's different.
Great. Thank you. Any other committee members?
Ms. Edmonds, I think, and then Mr. James.
Okay, so just so we do the right thing. We want to do the right thing and make
sure because unlike you, I didn't quit going to volunteer to read, so I should not go to read.
No, no. You're volunteering to read. That's not really in a position. That's volunteering your
time to read to kids. So that's not like you're in a solid position where
superior versus someone of a lesser position. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Yes, ma'am. What if you're volunteering for staff in the office so that they can have Christmas
lunch or something like that? That's a position that you're substituting yourself in,
so that may be a great area that could potentially be a conflict of interest.
Okay. Thank you. And my suggestion to you, when there is a doubt or question,
err on the side of caution. Mr. James.
Mr. Jenrett, I may also have, I guess, stepped in it. I have been responsible for building the
sets for a chorus production. And in the building of those sets, I had students assisting me.
I was solely a volunteer working for the Coral Director. Is that an issue?
I see that as a little bit different, because what capacity are you in a
control, controlling over somebody else? I mean, you said you had others,
students working in building, but you're sort of joining them to build something,
so I don't know if that's really the same. Well, I just want to make sure,
because I see this as a really gray area. We're getting into the weeds.
I think the intent is crystal clear. As a board member, we're not supposed to be in a
position that would influence or put the principal or assistant principal in a position that they may
not want to do their job, because we're the ones that were involved in the supervision of kids.
I understand that. But at the same time, I think we all got into this business because we
wanted to make the schools a better place. We had children, grandchildren that are going
through the schools, so we want to be participating in some way, so that's a fine line.
I guess would there be a, if we were to be involved in an activity, should we have a legal
interpretation by you to say it's okay before we agree to undertake a certain activity?
That's fine as far as the suggestion, whether it's thumbs up or thumbs down with certain
activities. But I would look at it like this. If you're working in a volunteering in a capacity
that is a position of some sort within the system, then that clearly, to me, is a conflict of
interest. Or are you subbing to do something that is a service that an employee would do
normally, that type of thing? But devoting your time to help the betterment of the school,
the community, I think it's a little bit different than the other volunteer aspect that
the intent of the opinion is based on. Mr.
Kenny, may I ask, so in my mind, I'm drawing a distinction and you correct me if I'm wrong.
If that person wants to volunteer, but they're having some sort of
discretion or authority in that position that they're wanting to volunteer for,
then it would be best not to serve. That's correct. Okay. Mr. Varnit.
Mr. General Rat, you and I have spoken about what I feel was another conflict of interest
in board members recusing themselves. I think the law clearly says when there's an issue
that any board member has someone in their family or close friends, relatives,
that receives a financial benefit, they must recuse themselves from discussion and from voting.
Your answer is you can recuse from an individual. I don't believe that's what the law says.
And what I'd like you to do, Mr. General Rat, is give me the legal opinion.
I want that recorded on the video and in the minutes. And then I'm going to go to the
South Carolina Ethics Commission and ask them for an opinion. Mr. Varnit, does the recusal that
you're talking about, does it pertain to this issue right here with the care custody and control
exerted over some of our employees and the act of conflict of interest?
Yes. It's a conflict of interest. I'll give you an example. Last week we voted on a holiday bonus.
Okay. Is it possible for us to separate these?
No. I don't think so because that's a conflict of interest and it needs to be
covered in the same paragraph. And it needs to be specific writing in that.
We have a worm, a word of mouth. When I ask Kenny, Kenny says, as long as it's the way we've done it.
Sir, there's a law that's an exception. And it is also found on the South Carolina Ethics
Commission website in reference to large groups. And that's a large group exception.
The large group exception means that you're voting for mass of large group of individuals,
that type of thing. And when doing so, that if the board member has a family member
that is receiving the same, nothing greater than, then they are able to vote and block
the large groups. What we have done in the past historically is that in the event that a
board member does have a family member, they still complete the recusal form and state
their family member. And they also state verbally that they're voting for the group
except their family member. But there is the large exception group. And that's what happened
at the last meeting with each board member. Thank you very much. And I would add too that if
you're looking at, if you have care, custody or control of a situation, you have that master
servant relationship. And that's where the conflict is coming from. And I think we all
understand that. Okay. Everybody good? Okay. May I ask a question? Certainly. Is the next step
that this proposed change to GC8 will come before us as a business item? We will. Thank you.
Along with any, any others that we discuss that need to come as well. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Oh, well, you might as well stay there.
Next, we're discussing electronic participation in board meetings and possibility of proxy. I
think that was on the original one. Yes. And doing research and references to this topic,
of course, you may be familiar with some of you on the board at the time
and some of you were not. But during COVID, the practice was to have meetings virtually to conduct
business. And at some point in time, the director from the state level is to all board meetings to
occur in person. And so we moved into that direction. Actually, we moved in that direction
prior to the information coming down from the state to do so. And with that in mind,
so the electronic or virtual option was being used then. And for most school boards that are out
there now, they are conducting their meetings in person with individuals all appearing in person,
voting in person by hand, by voice, et cetera. There are few that do some electronic options,
but those options are very specific as to when they were, when they are to occur.
And there are some components that are out there that you have to take into consideration.
One being the connectivity issue. You may have issues as far as connecting
and with whomever, wherever the person is and the board room.
There are also issues, I think most importantly, that overshadows that, the issues of confidentiality
in reference to who's on the other end, who has access, or with the capabilities of highly
intelligent folks, they're able to tap in to your connection and join you when you don't
need or want them to join you. Also, the confidentiality aspect of things happening
in reference to the topics that you would discuss by law in executive session. So, most boards
are doing it in person, voice vote, in person votes, et cetera, and just some language that
I've seen is in reference to all votes by members would be by hand or voice vote and
also there's no proxy voting when it comes to voting at the board level. So again, that's
what most are doing, just want to share that, but they are up to you that do the electronic
connection, but there are some concerns in reference to that.
Discussion? Mr. Cook.
Thank you, Mr. Graham. So, I've been thinking about this a lot. It's easy for me to, you
know, I drive over an hour to get here every meeting that I come to and it's easy for me
to go, oh, that would be great for me. I zoom every day and I do it all the time. But we
bring up these, you know, connectivity is not usually a problem, but I do start thinking
of confidentiality, safety and security. One of the other things that I think of
is, I guess I have no other way to describe it other than, well, wow, this could really
just become a thing for somebody. I mean, at some point we could go, oh, this is so convenient.
I'll just, eh, I don't feel like going tonight. I'm going to just do this. And, you know,
I feel like that could turn into an issue. And the other part about it is, if I'm not
going to be here, which I've probably missed a couple meetings, I guess, in my two years,
but I am fully confident that everybody else who's sitting at this board right now can
make good and sound decisions. And I believe that that's, you know, we are a board that
works as one together. And I do, you know, I trust everybody here. So I don't think,
you know, for me, you know, if this were ever to come do a vote, I would probably not
vote for it. Thank you, ma'am. I also, I feel that way as well. Because I love
phoning in and zooming in. But I do understand the need for me to personally be here. If
I'm sick, I'm not coming here. And I don't want to call in. And I don't want to zoom
in. If I'm on vacation, I'm not zooming in. If there's an emergency, I'm going to
take care of it. I'm probably not going to be here. And just like Mr. Cook said,
we have 12 highly intelligent people on this board. They are perfectly capable of making
decisions. In my absence, I feel like I think it would be presumptuous of me to think that
if I'm not here, you can't make a right decision. I just, I know that's not true.
So I would be voting for us to be present at a meeting to participate and to vote.
I think that's what our constituents expect. Yes, ma'am.
I feel the same way as Mr. Cook and yourself. My question is, we still get to give our proxy
during committee meetings, however.
Yes, that's different. And we need to clean that verbiage up, too. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Whelan?
I'm good.
Any other board members?
Is there proposed language to amend the current policy manual that identifies that we're allowed to
provide proxy for committee meetings? I know it was bit ambiguous in our current policy manual.
The committee meetings is stated in the committee meetings to do that, but we can make it
explicitly clear as far as board meetings are concerned.
I think it would be helpful to be as direct and unambiguous as possible in the policy manual.
So if I might ask the policy committee to consider cleaning that language up, as the chairwoman suggests.
I would ask that you give us some language that would be crystal clear.
And I would suggest that we tie all these things up before the end of this fiscal year.
Not fiscal year, this calendar year.
So when we meet again on Wednesday, could you have that for us?
And maybe we put something on the agenda to discuss more if we need to.
Yes.
And just to remind all board members, we do have on schedule two special call meetings after tonight,
one on December 11th and another on December 19th.
So there are agendas that these items can be added to get those matters voted upon.
So if you could get us the language before Wednesday, we can look at it, think about it,
discuss it on Wednesday, and then maybe have it as a business item on the night.
Is it the 19th?
You can do that, or yes.
Yes, you can do that for the 19th.
Can we vote on it this next?
Well, if there is the desire of the committee to forward to and you're reporting tonight a suggestion,
then you discuss it tonight and it can be voted on December 11th.
If that's the desire of the committee.
Yes, ma'am.
Are we talking about two different things?
One, the verbiage on the screen, and then two, the proxy voting, verbiage.
All right.
Which one are we doing this evening?
We're talking about number five, electronic participation in board meetings.
That would be at the next one once he gives us verbiage.
However, this in front of us, is that for this evening?
Do we need to make a motion?
No.
Not now.
Okay.
No.
Do you want all the items that you discussed to be voted on together in unison?
If so, then that could be done on the 11th, and you discuss those items as you report them out tonight,
if that's what you want to do?
I want to be as clear as possible to our board members and also to the public as to what we're doing.
So I think that the more we have it in public, the clearer it'll be.
So if we vote in a block, sometimes things get lost and misrepresented.
So I would just like to bring it forth one at a time.
That is my suggestion to the committee.
What do you think?
I'm good with that.
I'm good.
Okay.
Thank you.
I guess our next meeting date is Wednesday?
We're not meeting.
It's a policy committee.
Not the policy committee, but the board is meeting a special call for you.
And just to reiterate why, on December 11th, the board will be, after its announcement,
this evening of the top three finalists, the board will be conducting those interviews
on the 11th in a special call meeting.
And the interviews will be conducted in the executive session.
But because the board is meeting and you have to develop an agenda,
then add other items as you deem fit for that purpose.
If we take care of everything we need to do on the 11th,
the policy committee probably doesn't need to meet again until 25,
which would need to be January, I would think.
Is that convenient for y'all?
How about January the 27th?
At four?
January 27th.
I'm sorry.
Ms. Graham, I think that's our second meeting.
In January, the facilities committee has a standing committee.
Okay, that's right.
Well, we can do three then.
Thank you.
Ms. Graham, could you put some times on the self assessment?
In other words, you need to have it filled out
and needs to be in by such and such a date so she can consult.
I would ask that we have it when we come for our first meeting in January,
which is the 13th.
Well, if you need to do it the first meeting in January,
she's going to meet it before then.
No, I mean we actually have it and can print it out
and have it complete to give to her on the 13th.
And then maybe she can have the results to us by the 27th.
Because if I remember correctly in our policy,
it says that we have to have it done by our first meeting in January.
Or sometimes there.
I thought that was the assessment itself had to be done on the first meeting.
And I must be misunderstanding what you're saying.
Excuse me.
In the annual work plan under the board self assessments that we agreed to,
those were all supposed to be covered on January the 13th.
The self assessments for GC6.
There's a whole section here under our annual work plan.
Okay.
Well, do you want us to have this out to you so that you can have it ready
and back to us by the 13th.
Back here by the 13th and complete.
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
I'm sure Amanda can work with it.
And she will compile the results and we will have the results
by the work, our session on the 27th.
That'll give a couple of weeks.
So do you need more than that?
Excuse me.
I thought the language said we had to have it on the first meeting.
Does it just say January?
It says the first meeting but you would have it.
She's going to get it to us and we're going to complete it and bring it back.
I thought we had to have the assessment.
We physically did the assessment on the first meeting.
If that's what you want to do, we can do that.
That's what we agreed to on the work plan.
And on here it says annually in January and then we agreed to it on the work plan in January 13th.
Okay.
So I would say we get the assessment back to her the first week
and she puts it all together and she can send it back to us
and we can look at it and then do the assessment at the first meeting.
We can even do it if you like.
Since we're going to be meeting a couple more times this month,
go ahead and get it to us now and have it, just have it done.
All right. I like that.
Okay. Are we good?
Everything set?
We need a motion to adjourn.
Second.
No objections.
We're adjourned.
Thank you.