[0:00] All

[0:23] right, it's 5:30. I'd like to call to

[0:26] order tonight's regular board of

[0:27] education meeting for Wednesday,

[0:29] September 16th here in the boardroom.

[0:32] Could we have a roll call, please? Tammy

[0:34] >> Donna Gunther

[0:36] >> here. Waller

[0:37] >> here.

[0:38] >> Dash

[0:39] >> here.

[0:39] >> Amber,

[0:41] Jacqueline

[0:42] >> here. Mike

[0:44] >> here.

[0:45] >> Paul here.

[0:46] >> John Smith

[0:47] >> here.

[0:48] >> Kevin

[0:49] >> here.

[0:50] >> Please join me and stand face the flag

[0:52] for a pledge of allegiance.

[0:56] I aliance to the flag of the United

[0:59] States of America and to the republic

[1:02] for it stands one nation under God

[1:06] indivisible

[1:07] and justice for all.

[1:14] Good evening everyone and welcome to the

[1:15] Mural Area Public Schools Board of

[1:17] Education meeting. MAPS respects the

[1:19] role that our elected board members

[1:20] serve and the function of our board

[1:22] meetings. Board members and

[1:23] administrators are committed to working

[1:25] collaboratively to provide our students

[1:26] with the highest levels of achievement.

[1:28] This meeting is a formal event and

[1:29] professional conduct is the expectation

[1:31] for all in attendance. Thank you.

[1:33] >> Thank you, Mr. Murray. On our agenda

[1:36] next is public comments to the board. I

[1:38] do not have any sheets turned in and

[1:41] looking to make a public comment.

[1:42] normally would turn in a pink sheet with

[1:45] what they would like to speak on.

[1:48] We'll move right on to recognition.

[1:51] During this time on the agenda, we'd

[1:53] like to recognize this evening Linda

[1:55] Becker and the Backpack Project. We're

[1:56] pleased to recognize Linda for the many

[1:58] years of dedication and leadership and

[2:00] coordinating the Backpack Project. This

[2:03] important uh program helps students and

[2:06] families who qualify for free meals

[2:08] receive essential school supplies to

[2:11] help ensure every child begins the

[2:13] school year prepared and ready to learn.

[2:15] Backpack project prevent provides

[2:18] meaningful support to families who are

[2:20] working hard to make ends meet, helping

[2:22] remove barriers so students have the

[2:23] tools they need for success. We're

[2:26] deeply grateful to Linda and

[2:28] collaborators for their time, care, and

[2:29] commitment devoted to this worthwhile

[2:31] cause and to making a positive

[2:33] difference in the lives so many Maril

[2:35] public school students and families.

[2:38] Linda has thanked us for this

[2:40] recognition, but had another appointment

[2:44] this evening. So, round of applause

[2:46] would be appropriate.

[2:48] [applause]

[2:51] make sure we can get back to work

[2:53] appropriately.

[2:55] Shannon, you had a couple words you'd

[2:57] like to say at this time as well.

[2:58] >> Yeah, in addition to that recognition, I

[3:00] want to recognize that October 4th

[3:01] through 10th, which is prior to our next

[3:03] board meeting, is board member

[3:05] appreciation week. And so, uh, we

[3:08] certainly appreciate that everything

[3:09] that our board does for us. I know it's

[3:11] a [snorts] lot of time and committee

[3:13] meetings and special meetings and a ton

[3:15] of reading and a ton of questions. And

[3:17] so I appreciate that our board is a very

[3:20] strong board. People are doing it for

[3:21] the right reasons and it's a good mix of

[3:23] people and um we have a small token of

[3:26] our appreciation courtesy of the Fab Lab

[3:29] and some cards in there from um some of

[3:32] our students thinking. So on behalf of

[3:34] every staff member and student and

[3:37] family in our community, thank you for

[3:38] serving on our board. We do appreciate

[3:43] [applause]

[3:49] Next, I would like to introduce back

[3:51] from summer vacation, we have our

[3:54] student board of education reps, Eric

[3:56] Grunwald and Cameron Mazal.

[3:59] Take it away.

[3:59] >> All right. Yeah, it's good to be back. I

[4:01] was uh definitely was getting bored with

[4:03] summer, so I'm glad that I have

[4:04] [laughter]

[4:05] many, many assignments to do when I get

[4:07] home tonight. Um but yeah, homecoming

[4:09] prep has begun. Students are starting to

[4:11] prepare for the big week. uh signing up

[4:13] for various activities and planning

[4:15] skits for the rally. I already let

[4:17] Cameron know that they might as well

[4:19] just stop planning because the seniors

[4:20] are winning the contest. So yeah, um the

[4:24] back to school bash was on August 13th,

[4:27] so looking back a little bit, uh many

[4:29] members of the community showed up in

[4:30] support. There were many booths set up

[4:32] um along with hot dogs provided by Guys

[4:34] Meat and some ice cream from Culver's.

[4:37] Uh, I had the privilege of ice cream

[4:38] scooping for about two hours and

[4:41] definitely narrowed down my career

[4:43] choices. I don't think I'm cut out for

[4:45] ice cream scooping long term. Um, going

[4:48] on to some sports. Football has been off

[4:50] to a pretty good start uh at 500 with

[4:52] two wins and two losses and we have a

[4:54] big game coming up against Mosin at home

[4:56] this Friday. So, show up, support. It'll

[4:59] be a good one. Um, soccer is a game

[5:01] below 500. We just lost to Ryan Lander

[5:04] on Tuesday. Uh it was a tough loss, but

[5:07] we're bouncing back against Lakeland

[5:08] tomorrow. Um volleyball is doing good

[5:11] this season. We are 12 and seven and

[5:13] they just came off a big win against

[5:16] Tomahawk. That was Tuesday. It was a

[5:18] pretty big student section. It was good

[5:20] to see. All right, Cameron.

[5:22] >> All right, I'd just like to say thank

[5:24] you so much for letting me represent the

[5:25] student body. I feel like it's a very

[5:27] great privilege to be here. Um with the

[5:29] new cell phone policy, many students are

[5:31] getting used to it and don't mind the

[5:32] change. There are 11 violations within

[5:34] the first three weeks of school. The

[5:36] March marching Jays took second place in

[5:37] their division and fourth overall out of

[5:39] seven schools at their first competition

[5:41] of the year at the Baldwin Woodville

[5:43] show. They scored a solid 64.688

[5:46] and won best percussion and best color

[5:48] guard. The preac is coming up on

[5:50] Wednesday the 23rd for the freshman,

[5:52] sophomores, and jun juniors. And

[5:55] freshman orientation took place on the

[5:57] first. Eric and I were happy to help out

[5:58] as members of the link crew. We ran mock

[6:01] schedules, took part in a scavenger

[6:03] hunt, held tours, and had a costume

[6:04] competition to help the class of 2030

[6:06] settle in.

[6:10] >> Excellent. Board member questions for

[6:12] our student board reps.

[6:16] Thank you. Welcome back, Eric. Welcome,

[6:19] Cameron.

[6:19] >> Thank you.

[6:20] >> It's such a nice job. I can't even

[6:22] surprise you with the question.

[6:25] Just wait. I will at some point,

[6:26] Cameron. It's no fun just to do that

[6:28] first night here.

[6:30] and it will be fun to watch you grow and

[6:32] then banter back a little with Eric on

[6:34] how you know wishful thinking on the

[6:37] homecoming prep and that is something I

[6:40] look forward to you coming out of your

[6:41] shell over the next year. So, welcome

[6:45] and thank you.

[6:48] Moving on, I'd like to uh

[6:51] have Shannon go through administrative

[6:53] reports.

[6:55] Uh the first item item A under

[6:57] administrator reports is the Pine River

[6:59] School for Young Learners monthly data

[7:00] enrollment etc. Um some information

[7:03] about

[7:05] some documents from the office of head

[7:06] start etc. There's a number of um Head

[7:10] Start related agenda items coming up

[7:11] later but if you have questions for Mr.

[7:14] regarding head start here this evening.

[7:19] Item B is the director of people

[7:20] services special ed report some truency

[7:22] and attendance matters committee data

[7:24] that shared uh last week at the

[7:26] committee level and we're here to answer

[7:28] any questions if you have any questions

[7:30] for her.

[7:34] Item C is the director of curriculum

[7:35] instruction report. Amanda Patterson is

[7:38] here. Our focus of that was August

[7:39] professional development days. She

[7:41] presented that at the CTP committee last

[7:43] week. Um there are any questions coming

[7:45] in happy to answer.

[7:49] Item B is the director of finance

[7:51] report. There's a budget update in there

[7:52] including revenues and current updated

[7:54] revenues and expenses and some

[7:56] department updates. Mark is here this

[7:58] evening and he's able to answer some of

[8:00] those as well.

[8:04] Item E is the director of finance

[8:05] report. Mark presented this report at HR

[8:08] finance the other night. Talk about the

[8:10] history of our other postmployment

[8:12] benefits and those obligations. Mark is

[8:15] here to answer any questions that you

[8:17] may have on that

[8:20] item is the director of health uh human

[8:23] resources report. Um there's some

[8:25] information that Mark Hazley and Heather

[8:28] went to a captive conference in Utah as

[8:33] that's a requirement of being in the

[8:34] captive and so they went to that learned

[8:36] plenty and met a lot of people in that

[8:37] captain and it was good time well spent

[8:40] also I say good time well

[8:43] um

[8:44] >> but they are here if you have any

[8:45] questions about that.

[8:47] also some information out about our

[8:49] transition to

[8:51] WPS and Medan some staff welcome back

[8:53] information those kind of things so if

[8:56] there's any questions for issues here

[9:00] item G is a technology September monthly

[9:02] report this was presented last week as

[9:05] well at CTP some information on the

[9:08] start of the school year some health

[9:09] ticket updates and some devices etc the

[9:12] back questions

[9:17] Item H director building drones

[9:18] transportation update

[9:21] is not here right now but should be

[9:23] shortly um provided some information on

[9:27] project

[9:31] and then item I finally or lastly is

[9:34] superintendent report. He's got some

[9:36] information about a bright spots bright

[9:38] spot study that we're doing with uh four

[9:40] or five of the teams that achieved the

[9:42] most the teacher teams that have seen

[9:43] the most achievement and trying to

[9:45] capture uh what's working well to bring

[9:47] that around the district and take

[9:49] advantage of that expertise. We're also

[9:51] going to be bringing back a staff

[9:52] engagement survey in November. Uh

[9:54] previously we've engaged student in that

[9:57] but it was quite pricey. So BBA has been

[9:59] doing one on their own for the last few

[10:00] years and breaking down the data

[10:02] themselves and so we're going to copy or

[10:04] modify that model. Um some other

[10:07] information blessings etc etc so

[10:09] questions

[10:13] that's all I've got.

[10:16] Thank you Shannon. Next on our agenda is

[10:19] committee reports. We will start with

[10:22] the policy committee attached to the

[10:23] draft minutes from the September 2nd

[10:26] policy committee meeting. All crew as

[10:28] chair and other members of the policy

[10:30] committee are available for your

[10:31] questions. Do board members have any

[10:33] questions for the policy committee.

[10:39] Certainly can tell by later on in the

[10:41] agenda you guys did a lot of work. So

[10:43] thank you to the policy committee for

[10:44] that.

[10:46] Next is facilities committee attached to

[10:49] where the draft minutes from the

[10:51] September 9th committee meeting. Myself

[10:54] as chair and other members of facility

[10:56] committee are here to answer board

[10:58] member questions. Any board members have

[11:00] questions for our facilities committee

[11:06] hearing and seeing none. Next would be

[11:08] the finance human resources committee.

[11:11] Draft minutes were provided also from

[11:13] the September 9th committee meeting.

[11:15] John Smith as chair and other members of

[11:17] the finance human resources committee

[11:19] are available for board member

[11:20] questions. Any board members have

[11:23] questions for our finance HR committee

[11:25] members

[11:30] hearing and seeing none. Next is our CTP

[11:33] or curriculum technology pupil services

[11:35] committee attached for the draft minutes

[11:38] from the September 9th committee

[11:39] meeting. Brett Waller as chair and other

[11:41] members of the CTP committee available

[11:43] for board member questions. Any board

[11:46] members have questions for our CTP

[11:48] committee members

[11:53] hearing and seeing none. We'll move on

[11:54] to unfinished business. We currently

[11:56] have nothing categorized there. So we

[11:58] will move on to board of education

[12:01] business. We will start with the Head

[12:04] Start 2025 2026 annual report. The topic

[12:08] summary sheet was provided by Ryan

[12:10] Martinovich. There is a recommended

[12:12] motion. Any board members willing to

[12:14] make a motion on this first agenda item

[12:16] this evening?

[12:21] » Paul, I move to approve the Head Start

[12:24] annual. Am I the right one?

[12:26] >> Yep.

[12:26] >> Move to approve Head Start annual report

[12:28] 2025 2026. Have a motion by Paul. We

[12:32] have a second. Have a second by John.

[12:35] Any discussion or questions in regards

[12:37] to this motion or agenda item?

[12:42] Any discussion or questions in regards

[12:44] to this motion?

[12:46] Hearing none. All those in favor of that

[12:47] motion signify by saying I. I. I. Anyone

[12:51] opposed say nay. Have any abstensions.

[12:57] Motion carries on the voice vote.

[13:01] Next item and we have probably four. So

[13:04] if Ryan wants to come up to the table

[13:06] just in case we have any questions. I'm

[13:08] not anticipating any but just so you're

[13:10] prepared. Ryan, uh we have

[13:12] >> Mark

[13:15] request for extension to address area

[13:18] non-compliance ANC with the

[13:20] administration of children families ACF

[13:23] and office of head start attaches a

[13:25] topic summary sheet from Brian

[13:27] Matinovich and a recommended motion. Do

[13:30] we have a motion on this agenda item?

[13:34] I move to approve the extension request

[13:37] from the administration of children and

[13:39] families and office of head start to

[13:42] address area of non compliance a motion

[13:45] by knobs. We have a second

[13:48] by Mike.

[13:49] Any discussion or questions or you like

[13:51] to lead in with something there Shannon?

[13:53] >> Yeah I'll say I'll set the stage. So

[13:55] every year we have a district financial

[13:57] audit and we regularly have one of two

[13:59] findings. One is that we produce our own

[14:02] financial document reports which is

[14:04] every district in the state of Wisconsin

[14:06] and the other is um segregation of

[14:08] duties is probably the best way to

[14:09] describe that that um we don't have

[14:12] enough staff to do all the things that

[14:14] warrant all the steps. Is that correct?

[14:16] >> Yeah.

[14:16] >> So so and that's a common and so uh the

[14:20] head we did a head start audit last year

[14:22] in March first week of March. And so one

[14:25] of the documents that we submit as part

[14:27] of that process is our fiscal audit that

[14:30] was submitted to the I'll call them the

[14:32] feds because that's what we call and uh

[14:36] so that finding in our audit got flagged

[14:39] on their end when they saw that we don't

[14:41] have enough eyes on things signing off

[14:43] >> internal controls and so um

[14:48] Mark Ryan myself met with them initially

[14:52] and I think John you said

[14:54] time government is designed to be

[14:55] inefficient or inefficient by design.

[14:57] This is the case study of this. So we

[15:00] met with initially and they referred us

[15:03] to the next group who disagrees with the

[15:04] first group. They're probably in the

[15:05] same building

[15:07] >> and one of the remedies is come up with

[15:09] an action plan, come up with some fiscal

[15:11] procedures etc. But that whole process

[15:14] starts with getting an extension on the

[15:17] finding.

[15:19] So uh mostly because we got our audit

[15:21] back. So the other thing that federal

[15:25] >> this first item these are all

[15:26] essentially the same things just

[15:28] touching on different check boxes on a

[15:32] second. Um these are essentially all

[15:35] dealing with the same thing that we have

[15:37] putting uh procedures in place mostly

[15:40] formalizing procedures because the

[15:41] procedures were there not the formal

[15:44] documentation of emails marketing sign

[15:47] up on this kind of stuff or how that

[15:48] goes and so um

[15:52] so the first step is to get approval of

[15:55] the extension. I believe many of these

[15:56] things you have to pass your own council

[15:58] as well. Yeah, the the extension really

[16:00] is uh allowing us to show proof that

[16:03] we're following through on the all the

[16:06] things that they're asking and

[16:07] requesting us to to do. Um it's

[16:12] a bit of hoop jumping. I'm glad to do

[16:15] it, but it was it was a surprise to us

[16:18] in in June because it this never came up

[16:21] at all during that process. Um the first

[16:24] tier told us like yeah we approved we

[16:27] sent it on and um many people at

[16:30] Washington look at it. Um, and that's

[16:34] they flagged it, I'm sure, because of

[16:35] that. Uh, the district audit that

[16:38] basically said that uh the wording that

[16:40] they didn't like in there is that we did

[16:42] nothing. I mean, we had a a issue with

[16:45] that because we do like we we've been

[16:47] putting things in place um not

[16:50] necessarily to what they want to see. Uh

[16:53] even the findings that they had were ve

[16:56] were very vague and it was like what

[16:59] does that mean? And that's what Shannon

[17:00] was alluding to meeting with them. They

[17:02] couldn't even tell us what it meant and

[17:05] give us like what do we need to do to

[17:07] fix it. So I think we're in a good place

[17:10] with how to fix the issue. Um that's come up. But um and even that,

[17:17] you know, the bottom line is nobody's

[17:18] doing anything wrong. We're not

[17:19] misappropriating funds, any of that.

[17:21] It's um they want to see a process, a

[17:24] certain process in place. So

[17:27] >> yep.

[17:29] No, I think it was just they were being

[17:31] picky on certain things and which the

[17:33] Fed does and like Brian said, we're

[17:35] doing it. Um, but [clears throat] they

[17:38] wanted more documentation and more

[17:40] signoffs. So, basically it's filing

[17:43] reports and it was one report

[17:45] and you know, we've been doing it all

[17:48] through the year with monthly reports.

[17:51] Um, but they didn't for better didn't

[17:55] like the way we were doing it. So kind

[17:56] of we've adjusted and also I think you

[17:59] know going down these three or four

[18:00] other things. It's more of a

[18:02] documentation into our current plan that

[18:05] details it a lot more. So we know

[18:07] something's in place that we have to

[18:09] follow and that should satisfy both

[18:12] audits.

[18:13] So I mean the two that um Shannon

[18:17] referenced are never going to go away

[18:18] [cough and clears throat] because we

[18:19] just don't have the staff. And I we've

[18:20] tried to explain to him this is in every

[18:22] audit in the state of Wisconsin for

[18:24] school districts.

[18:26] >> We did talk to Stuart about

[18:28] >> our auditor about at least acknowledging

[18:33] the fact of the things that we've been

[18:35] putting in place. So it doesn't say

[18:37] they're doing nothing

[18:39] like that's I think what they have most

[18:41] issue with.

[18:42] >> So

[18:46] that intro to the topic. Any additional

[18:49] questions or discussion based on this

[18:51] motion and agenda?

[18:55] >> Go ahead, John.

[18:56] >> So, [clears throat]

[18:57] next time they audit us. Is there a way

[19:00] then? Because I believe they present

[19:02] themselves.

[19:02] >> They're coming back in. So, with this

[19:04] extension, if I don't get the extension,

[19:07] we're technically meeting with the

[19:08] auditors again October

[19:11] >> 22.

[19:11] >> 22nd.

[19:13] >> So, our auditors present themselves, our

[19:16] district auditors,

[19:17] >> right? But they're the ones that use the

[19:20] verbiage that flag the additional audit.

[19:22] >> Yeah. And we have provided them

[19:24] documentation of what we're doing to

[19:25] change the process. And so they always

[19:28] send the draft and I'll look and see

[19:29] what the the prior audit statement was.

[19:32] >> I guess my question I'm getting around

[19:35] to is when they're here next, is there a

[19:39] way this board can like

[19:44] parse out uh their if they don't give us

[19:48] what we want. So like if there if there

[19:50] are non-compliances, if there are ver

[19:52] verbiage that we don't agree with, we

[19:54] can challenge that because I don't even

[19:56] think if someone comes right now, I

[19:58] wouldn't even know to challenge it. But

[20:00] if

[20:01] >> is it is it just a single document that

[20:03] said this is your area of

[20:04] non-compliance? We read it more

[20:05] thoroughly, look for definitive words

[20:07] that say yes, no, never, and then kick

[20:09] it back and say we disagree.

[20:11] >> It's a yearly thing where they put

[20:12] exceptions to the to the audit or I

[20:15] don't know what you want to say. Um, but

[20:17] they always have to to reference the

[20:19] prior year. And so if the prior year

[20:21] says we won't [clears throat] do

[20:22] anything or it's vague, we've talked to

[20:24] them about being more specific and

[20:25] saying we are doing this now. So then

[20:28] that audit exception goes away.

[20:30] >> Okay.

[20:30] >> And the extension actually goes uh the

[20:33] goal was to get past when the board gets

[20:36] the district audit back is typically

[20:39] between a December January time frame

[20:42] where you actually approve that

[20:44] auditing. And we'reing we'reing John,

[20:46] that that verbiage that is noted within

[20:50] that audit because the extension goes to

[20:52] February.

[20:53] So, and that was the feds know this too

[20:56] and they're hoping to see you.

[20:59] >> That's I guess what I'm saying is we

[21:00] have we would approve the audit because

[21:02] it's slipped in front of us and we say

[21:04] all those in favor say I.

[21:06] >> Right.

[21:06] >> Versus saying nay,

[21:08] >> right? I don't agree with this verbiage

[21:10] that you have in paragraph three

[21:12] >> and having a dialogue with the auditor.

[21:15] >> I mean, are we prepared in the next go

[21:17] around to at least make sure that

[21:19] >> Yeah, because they give they send us a

[21:21] draft before we

[21:22] >> and we should be able to challenge that

[21:24] if we disagree is what I'm saying

[21:25] because if that slipped through,

[21:26] >> right,

[21:27] >> the the definitive word slip through so

[21:30] that we put in place

[21:31] >> the ability to at least push back and

[21:33] say we

[21:34] >> we don't agree with this,

[21:35] >> right? Yeah,

[21:36] >> because it later gets us out and we're

[21:39] purchasing the service. Not that we want

[21:41] an outcome to an audit to be in our

[21:43] favor.

[21:44] >> That it's not the point of audits, but

[21:46] it's also

[21:47] >> the responsibility to not jam us up in

[21:51] the future just with some wording,

[21:53] >> right?

[21:56] >> It would have been less of an issue if

[21:57] we wouldn't had the federal because

[21:59] that's like you said, that's what flag

[22:01] it and we would have just addressed it.

[22:03] they would have taken it off the

[22:04] exceptions and we would have moved on.

[22:06] But now we have to as you said we have

[22:07] to jump up through all these hoops,

[22:09] >> right? But it's also a learning

[22:10] situation where kind of that blanket

[22:13] adoption of an audit lays in wait for

[22:16] the next one and then it has a snowball

[22:19] effect. So now we know moving forward

[22:21] that if there are

[22:25] um exceptions or um perceived remedies

[22:30] that we at least agree with the

[22:31] languaging before adopting it as a

[22:33] board. That makes sense.

[22:38] » Thank you.

[22:39] >> Thanks for your work, too.

[22:41] >> Thank you, John. Any additional

[22:43] questions or discussion points from

[22:46] board members?

[22:49] I guess I just want to make sure. So, I

[22:51] mean the main issue is just that there

[22:53] has to be another person reviewing the

[22:56] statements, correct? Am I reading that

[22:58] right or is there a lot more to it?

[23:00] >> Um, that process was being done but it

[23:02] wasn't in written form.

[23:04] >> Okay,

[23:06] >> that's really we had that they didn't

[23:09] ask us.

[23:10] >> Yeah, that's the thing. When we had our

[23:12] final meeting with them, usually in an

[23:15] audit, if they don't find something that

[23:16] they want to see, they continue to ask

[23:19] the same question. So, it's like none of

[23:21] that took place. So, Shannon said, time

[23:25] went by, we didn't get our audit back in

[23:27] the timely manner we should have. Um,

[23:29] then we kind of were blindsided by this

[23:32] um because there was no mention of it

[23:35] during when they were here.

[23:37] >> That's not normal.

[23:39] >> Jill, all the other former directors

[23:41] never have experienced that. So,

[23:46] » there's weird things just

[23:52] any other questions.

[23:54] Any other board members have questions

[23:56] or discussion on this motion or agenda

[23:58] item?

[24:02] Hearing seeing none, all those in favor

[24:03] of this motion signify by saying I.

[24:06] >> I. I.

[24:07] >> Anyone opposed? Say n.

[24:09] >> We have any abstensions?

[24:12] Motion carries.

[24:14] Next item on our agenda is the update to

[24:16] the Head Start fiscal management

[24:18] handbook 2026 2027. A topic summary is

[24:22] also provided by Ryan with a recommended

[24:25] motion. Anyone willing to make a motion

[24:28] on this agenda item.

[24:34] » Go ahead, John.

[24:35] >> Um motion to approve the updates to the

[24:38] Head Start fiscal handbook for 2026

[24:40] 2027.

[24:42] >> Motion by John. We have a second. Second

[24:45] by Donna.

[24:47] Any discussion or questions or anything

[24:49] to add on that? Sean,

[24:51] >> this one at the bottom of Ryan's topic

[24:53] summary sheet, very well written,

[24:55] self-explanatory. These are the the

[24:57] action steps that remedy that issue.

[25:06] » And some were recommended by our

[25:08] district auditor.

[25:13] All right. Thank you. Any followup

[25:15] questions or discussion on this motion

[25:17] or agenda item?

[25:24] Hearing and seeing none. All those in

[25:25] favor of that motion signify by saying

[25:27] I. I.

[25:28] >> I. Anyone opposed? Say n.

[25:32] You have any abstensions?

[25:35] Motion carries.

[25:37] Next item on the agenda is the update to

[25:39] the purchasing procedures for federal

[25:41] funds 2026 2027.

[25:44] Ryan's topic summary sheet is attached

[25:46] with the recommended motion. Any board

[25:49] members willing to make a motion on

[25:50] this? Paul. I move to approve the

[25:53] updates to the purchasing and procedures

[25:55] federal funds 2026 2027.

[25:57] >> Motion by Paul. We have a second.

[26:00] by nubs. Any discussion,

[26:04] questions or lead in on that?

[26:05] >> The previous dealt with the fiscal

[26:07] management handbook purchasing federal government procedures. Same

[26:12] verbage,

[26:13] >> same thing.

[26:15] >> Just a different document.

[26:16] [clears throat]

[26:21] » Any additional followup questions or

[26:24] discussion on this agenda item or

[26:26] corresponding motion

[26:31] hearing? And seeing none, all those in

[26:32] favor of this motion signify by saying

[26:34] I. I. I.

[26:36] >> Anyone opposed say nay.

[26:39] >> Any abstensions?

[26:42] Motion carries on a voice vote.

[26:46] Next on the agenda is the approval of

[26:48] the corrective action plan. Ryan's topic

[26:51] summary sheet was attached. The

[26:53] recommended motion also you have any

[26:56] board member willing to make a motion on

[26:58] this agenda item.

[27:00] Nubs

[27:02] >> to approve the correct action plan.

[27:07] We have a motion by nubs. Do we have a

[27:09] second? Second by Mike. Any discussion

[27:12] or questions or like that all together?

[27:16] >> Yeah, this is the actual correct

[27:17] corrective action plan that Ryan and

[27:20] Mark have been working through with

[27:21] sandicular.

[27:24] >> Well, if you see at the top of that that

[27:26] first page that is all we received, the

[27:28] finding details um and

[27:33] they didn't get into um a lot of the

[27:36] details when we asked them. That was

[27:39] those bullets there like what does this

[27:41] mean and what were you looking at? We

[27:44] were very direct and like trying to

[27:46] identify um what they were actually

[27:50] trying to

[27:52] get in addition from us like we have an

[27:54] interest obviously in making sure that

[27:56] the it goes away.

[27:58] >> Um

[28:00] you'll see during throughout this

[28:03] corrective action plan uh we're required

[28:05] to have training technical assistance. I

[28:08] have an outside person that works as an

[28:09] outside contractor with the Fed. Um her

[28:12] name is Chris. She spent a day with

[28:15] myself, Mark, um Deb and Hazley. Um and

[28:21] we walked through what we felt were all

[28:24] the things that were needed um in order

[28:26] to make the correction

[28:28] go away and fix it, remedy it. Um so

[28:31] you'll see all the way through here. Um,

[28:35] a lot of the recommendations did come

[28:37] from them.

[28:39] I want wanted to force them to tell me

[28:41] what do we need to do? Show tell me what

[28:43] I need to show you. Um, so a lot of them

[28:46] are there as far as that like the

[28:49] handbooks

[28:51] um are in there. Uh there's a lot with

[28:54] training Hazley as they know I've been

[28:56] very transparent in the last year and a

[28:58] half that we have the grow your own

[28:59] program and we're training Hazley.

[29:03] and I are going to a fiscal

[29:05] institute

[29:08] in Chicago end of the month

[29:12] to actually walk through the entire

[29:14] process. So

[29:17] I'm still skeptical.

[29:18] >> Can you talk about the yellows and the

[29:20] yellows? What are you talking

[29:23] >> down feels like page boxes and some

[29:26] yellow boxes?

[29:27] >> Oh, yellows and reds are basically just

[29:31] giving me this a living document right

[29:33] now. So, what you're seeing the the

[29:36] action steps aren't going to change. Uh

[29:39] the yellow is telling me that I need to

[29:41] make sure like I have to provide

[29:42] evidence. So there's progress notes,

[29:45] completion date, like for instance the

[29:47] corrective action plan. They told me I

[29:48] have to have a board policy council

[29:51] approved. So once this gets done, you

[29:54] know, Tammy gets to see the live live

[29:56] version. She shares the board minutes

[29:58] with us that say that it was formally

[30:00] taken to the school board, voted on,

[30:03] etc. That is what I will submit when the

[30:06] auditors are wanting to come back to us

[30:08] in hopefully the extension gets approved

[30:10] in February. Uh that's what they're

[30:12] going to want to see. I'll be submitting

[30:14] all of the progress notes, all the topic

[30:16] summaries, everything that we've been

[30:17] doing uh along with um all the finan the

[30:21] new documents that Mark Hazley and

[30:24] myself created so that it's easier to

[30:27] review and read. So it's evidence they

[30:30] want to see.

[30:36] » Thank you. Any additional board member

[30:39] questions

[30:41] or discussion on this particular agenda

[30:44] item?

[30:46] >> Brian Mark, do you think this is enough

[30:47] to get us past the future?

[30:49] >> Um, I asked that question of them and um

[30:53] my program specialist at the first level

[30:57] believe it should be

[30:59] skeptical at the next level.

[31:01] >> And how do we get them to be believe it

[31:03] should be at the next level? I I really

[31:05] don't know. You know, the biggest thing

[31:08] is it's happened to a lot of programs um

[31:10] that we were getting surprises like

[31:12] this. Um it's very apparent when I got

[31:14] the first bulletin that it was AI driven

[31:17] reviewed. That's the frustrating part.

[31:20] Like when they put in screen, they're

[31:22] putting in certain words and they're

[31:24] finding those things and they're just

[31:26] really nitpicking on a variety of

[31:28] things. So it's it's not just the meril

[31:31] head start, it's

[31:33] head start statewide and region.

[31:36] >> Someone someone sign off on this plan.

[31:43] » Okay. So at the first at our program

[31:44] level, yes, they are like, yep, this is

[31:48] this should be okay. Um

[31:51] what I said when I'm skeptical, you

[31:53] know, Deb and I feel like do we have

[31:56] enough? That's the question that we've

[31:58] been asking, like are they going to view

[32:00] it as what they want to see? So, um I'm still skeptical on it.

[32:08] >> And that's a that's a real

[32:09] >> Yeah. skeptical conversations with it's

[32:12] hard to get clarity.

[32:13] >> It's hard to get clarity.

[32:14] >> Hard to pin down like what what exactly

[32:16] do you want?

[32:21] » Any followup questions, John? one's

[32:23] ruling.

[32:24] >> No, I wanted to give Ryan a little bit

[32:27] of assurance, reassurance. I've been

[32:29] through Medicare audits before and the

[32:33] auditors themselves are compelled by

[32:35] their higher ops to find things um to

[32:40] show

[32:42] like a level of scrutiny and considering

[32:45] the particular environment of the

[32:46] federal government and their need to

[32:50] demonstrate um anti-fraud type behavior.

[32:53] I don't

[32:55] I think it's probably pretty normal

[32:57] right now. Um, but it's very common

[33:00] place. I don't know if I've ever passed

[33:02] a Medicare

[33:04] accreditation audit without at least one

[33:07] or two corrective actions and then you

[33:09] submit your corrective action and within

[33:11] 90 days they say it's fine and then

[33:12] three years later they they do it again

[33:15] but under a different category. So just

[33:18] to kind of paint a picture of

[33:21] >> correct

[33:24] » I will say and I said this this

[33:28] many times, right?

[33:30] >> Yeah, it was four times to be exact.

[33:31] >> Yeah. If you ever want somebody to

[33:34] represent your institution organization,

[33:36] pick that guy

[33:38] organized all the fingertips

[33:44] with the auditors.

[33:47] So, thank you for this.

[33:54] I'll ask again if any board members have

[33:56] any follow-up questions on this agenda

[33:58] item or this the corresponding motion

[34:05] » hearing and seeing none. All those in

[34:07] favor of that motion signify by saying

[34:09] I.

[34:10] >> Anyone opposed say nay.

[34:14] >> Any abstensions.

[34:17] Motion carries on a voice.

[34:20] Next on our agenda, I can excuse these

[34:23] two individuals. We move on to fiscal

[34:26] year 26 evacuation drills topic summary

[34:30] sheet provided by Amber Lusa and a

[34:32] recommended motion from facilities

[34:34] committee. Paul move to accept the

[34:36] evacuation drill logs and submit them to

[34:38] the Department of Justice Office of

[34:39] School Safety.

[34:41] >> Motion by Paul. We have a second. Second

[34:43] by Mike.

[34:45] Any discussion or question in regards to

[34:48] this motion or corresponding agenda item

[34:55] hearing and seeing none. All those in

[34:57] favor of that motion signify by saying

[34:58] I.

[35:00] >> I.

[35:01] >> Anyone oppose say nay.

[35:04] Any abstensions?

[35:07] Motion carries on a voice vote. Next

[35:10] item on our agenda is the emergency

[35:11] operation and school safety plan topic

[35:14] summary sheet also provided by Amber

[35:16] Alooa and a recommended motion by

[35:18] facilities committee. Any board member

[35:21] willing to make a motion on this agenda

[35:23] item.

[35:26] Paul

[35:28] move to approve the maps emergency

[35:31] procedures and the school safety plan is

[35:33] presented.

[35:34] >> A motion by Paul. Do we have a second?

[35:38] by Jacqueline. Any discussion or

[35:41] questions in regards to this agenda item

[35:43] or its corresponding motion?

[35:47] » John,

[35:48] >> I guess I wanted to get some sort of um

[35:53] feedback on like how the plan is

[35:57] rehearsed.

[35:59] come up. Um, so there's I'll let you

[36:03] there's many many steps from tabletop

[36:05] exercises working

[36:07] with the students do the drills. So I'll

[36:09] let you

[36:11] um as you can see the emergency

[36:13] operations plan is pretty detailed in a

[36:15] lot of different scenarios. So we kind

[36:17] of have a couple different layers of how

[36:18] it's rehearsed. All staff at least

[36:21] annually before the start of the school

[36:22] year are trained in Alice. So we still

[36:25] operate under the um Alice here at MAPS.

[36:28] So that is something all staff do. Um we

[36:31] meet as an administrative team on more

[36:33] our end in terms of emergency response

[36:36] crisis protocol reunification procedures

[36:39] to see um kind of any updates from our

[36:41] end what we need to put in place.

[36:42] actually within the last year um we met

[36:45] with Mel PD SWAT fire Lincoln County

[36:49] Sheriff's Department and administrative

[36:51] team to do kind of a well first just

[36:54] update where are we all at together in

[36:56] terms of how do we talk through do we

[36:57] need anything additional to be prepared

[36:59] in the unlikely event um and then had

[37:02] some conversation about just who kind of

[37:04] takes the lead in those scenarios and

[37:06] just sh up between our agencies.

[37:09] um a lot of layers of kind of proactive

[37:12] measures. I know I've shared at other um

[37:15] meetings just about like our staff being

[37:17] trained in threat assessment. Um how do

[37:19] we put proactive measures in place in

[37:21] the building to hopefully prevent things

[37:23] in the last year or two we had visitor

[37:25] aware um sign and things. So more kind

[37:27] of preventative measures on that end. Um

[37:31] and then we do just the last item that

[37:34] was approved. So we have drills

[37:35] conducted every year. We have fire

[37:37] drills every month. We have to do safety

[37:39] drills at least two times a year. So

[37:41] that's something building specific that

[37:42] they pick different scenarios and then

[37:44] they debrief as well. What went well? Um

[37:48] maybe what are some other considerations

[37:49] that they want to try in the next drill

[37:51] to make sure that students and staff are

[37:53] prepared.

[37:55] anytime a new office tours.

[38:03] We also um there's like layers. So we

[38:07] have like a student in the case of a

[38:09] medical emergency where we're trying to

[38:10] protect privacy students.

[38:16] It's not lockown.

[38:19] Um so we those things with our students

[38:23] in an appropriate way and appropriate

[38:27] way.

[38:28] So the hold and the lockdown scenarios

[38:31] are drilled

[38:33] >> with with students at least once a year

[38:35] or

[38:36] >> and and and done they're done twice and

[38:39] many cases particularly I'll speak from

[38:41] my high school experience anytime

[38:42] somebody has a call that's a whole

[38:48] so that's

[38:50] a year

[38:51] >> okay

[38:53] and then uh our busing

[38:56] company is involved in this process

[38:58] Also,

[38:59] >> yeah, they have all our information

[39:01] where the sites are. We have all their

[39:04] contact information, how many buses we

[39:05] need at each building, get them to where

[39:07] they need to go.

[39:10] In fact, we just have that conversation.

[39:15] » And then as far as reunification goes,

[39:17] what level of um

[39:21] what level [clears throat] of the

[39:22] reunification plan involves the like

[39:25] secure handoff of students to parents,

[39:29] >> you know, like that's one of the

[39:30] >> Y

[39:31] >> that's one of the areas that's a little

[39:32] bit

[39:34] >> sometimes the most difficult to execute

[39:36] >> is you have all 10,000 students whatever

[39:39] in said area but parents want kids

[39:42] >> we're have the custody of them

[39:44] currently.

[39:45] >> So like what kind of

[39:47] >> So that's something that we've actually

[39:48] actively prioritized um over the last

[39:51] year I would say. Um, so we had admin

[39:53] representatives from all buildings,

[39:56] myself, some other district level that

[39:57] went to a training and that was um with

[40:00] the I love you guys foundation on the

[40:02] reunification training. So even though

[40:03] we're still doing Alice very similar

[40:05] methods methods and protocols and they

[40:07] have a specific reunification training.

[40:10] So we were able to take u materials and

[40:12] be more prepared with that. So we have

[40:14] the cards where the parents are going to

[40:16] we would communicate with parents that

[40:17] they need the ID to be able to pick up

[40:19] their students. we would have law

[40:20] enforcement stationed there to help if

[40:21] there was an escalated situation or

[40:24] uncertainty um to to have a as much as

[40:27] possible orderly fashion. Um

[40:30] >> so you very

[40:31] >> you do use I love you guys foundation.

[40:33] >> So we use the materials um like I said

[40:35] we went to the reunification training

[40:37] based on that. Alice um to my knowledge

[40:39] doesn't have like a specific

[40:40] reunification training. So that was

[40:42] something we identified we wanted more

[40:43] in place. So we use the I love you guys

[40:45] foundation for the reunification.

[40:48] >> So like and you guys are

[40:51] >> and there's a great deal of

[40:54] >> Amber felt that

[40:56] Ellis protocols were lacking

[41:00] so that

[41:01] >> and we did have a conversation with Mel

[41:03] PD and the sheriff's department about um

[41:06] like maintaining Alice versus switching

[41:08] to the standard response protocol kind

[41:10] of across the district and they said

[41:12] they're trained across both at similar

[41:14] methods. We kind of talked as an admin

[41:16] team. Our staff and students are trained

[41:18] in Alice, so something consistent um for

[41:21] them, but then as Shannon just kind of

[41:22] mentioned, then we beefed up the

[41:24] reunification kind of procedure and

[41:26] process.

[41:27] >> Would you say we're at a point where

[41:30] because it takes a lot of people, have a

[41:32] lot of manpower, are we to a point where

[41:34] we're going to plan to get to a point

[41:36] where staff would know their assigned

[41:38] roles in event of emergency and report

[41:40] to their assigned locations and assume

[41:42] the responsibilities of that?

[41:44] role. I mean, are we there or are we

[41:47] heading there?

[41:49] >> I would say like from an administrative

[41:51] team, we've been able to kind of

[41:53] delineate our role. Certainly, as you

[41:54] know, no two situation is the same and

[41:56] you can't prepare like if someone's

[41:58] absent one day or you know filling in

[42:00] here. Um staff are more aware of I would

[42:03] say like building staff are more aware

[42:05] of kind of the rally point and then

[42:06] evacuation point. I wouldn't say [cough]

[42:08] they're necessarily [clears throat]

[42:10] now I'm the person doing the intake

[42:12] there. That's more kind of at the admin

[42:14] level where we're delineating that now.

[42:17] set a goal to retain it

[42:20] like added I mean one of the one of the

[42:23] challenges is simply

[42:25] there's a lot of paper there's 36 pages

[42:29] >> and the pages are there but the

[42:30] execution has to take place

[42:32] >> so um from my standpoint having been in

[42:36] buildings in this role

[42:39] >> people at the building level the

[42:40] teachers know what need to be done to

[42:42] address the situation standpoint to get

[42:45] to the level the next step and then the

[42:49] next group kind of takes over. And so

[42:51] there are people like as the happening

[42:53] there are people that are making and so

[42:56] there comes a point where that teacher

[42:58] is kind of off the hook so to speak the

[43:00] next and very shortly the whole thing

[43:03] authorities

[43:08] so I think there's people have their

[43:10] roles within I don't want to say that's

[43:13] not the right term I want to use but

[43:15] Everybody's got their roles and

[43:16] different people take over different

[43:18] places. And I I think our plan is pretty

[43:20] solid

[43:22] and we we drill it up to the point short

[43:25] of a

[43:33] thank you.

[43:36] >> Go ahead.

[43:37] >> Amber,

[43:39] how often do those take place?

[43:44] >> Yeah. So I reached out at the beginning

[43:45] of this year. Um so there's not like a

[43:47] requirement of how frequently we used to

[43:50] have a district employee that was

[43:51] certified to do the assessment. So I

[43:53] think now that he's no longer here at

[43:55] MAPS. Um we did talk is Nick back there?

[43:58] I know we talked earlier this year about

[44:00] um Nick potentially going through the

[44:02] certification so that he can assess the

[44:04] buildings. I mean we do more informal

[44:06] assessments. Um statewide there's not a

[44:08] mandate of every so often or frequency.

[44:11] they had recommended um if we wanted to

[44:14] get a current employee certified in that would be the easiest or most

[44:18] feasible way to do that.

[44:25] follow questions or

[44:27] >> I should add um not related to

[44:29] necessarily walkthrough, but we do work

[44:31] with a company to update all of our maps

[44:33] across the district and that's annually.

[44:35] They'll check in with us. Are there any

[44:36] things that we need to change across our

[44:39] um building layouts and then we sub they

[44:42] help submit those to the police

[44:44] department, the sheriff's department so

[44:45] they have all updated maps of all of our

[44:47] buildings.

[44:49] Any

[44:52] additional board member questions or

[44:54] discussion on this agenda item or

[44:56] corresponding motion?

[45:02] » Hearing seeing none, all those in favor

[45:03] of this motion signify by saying I.

[45:06] >> I. Anyone opposed say nay.

[45:10] >> We have any abstensions?

[45:13] Motion carries.

[45:15] >> Thank you.

[45:17] Next item on our agenda is the

[45:20] resolution

[45:21] authorizing a taxable tax and revenue

[45:24] anticipation promisary note for cash

[45:27] flow purposes and amount not to exceed

[45:30] $1 million. Attached was a topic summary

[45:33] sheet from Mark Powell and a recommended

[45:36] motion from our finance human resources

[45:37] committee. Any board member willing to

[45:39] make a motion on this agenda item?

[45:44] Mike

[45:45] Motion to approve the resolution

[45:47] authorizing a taxable tax and revenue

[45:49] participation promisory note for cash

[45:51] flow purposes is an amount not to exceed

[45:53] $1 million line of credit with

[45:55] incredible bank for the 2026 2027 fiscal

[45:59] year motion by Mike. Do we have a second

[46:03] by John?

[46:05] Any discussion, questions or anything

[46:08] you'd like to add on this?

[46:11] There's some good news with that as our

[46:15] general fund has increased. It's been

[46:18] reviewed and we were not using some of

[46:22] the uh money that we had out there as

[46:26] far as what we were doing before in a

[46:27] consort consortium. Easy for me to say.

[46:31] Uh so

[46:33] we're not even sure based on some of the

[46:36] findings and some of the things Mark had

[46:38] shared, you know, if we're going to need

[46:40] this. This feels a little more like a

[46:41] safety net and if we do happen to use it

[46:43] for cash flow.

[46:45] >> Yeah.

[46:45] >> Then that would be where interest would

[46:47] be paid in that.

[46:49] >> Yeah. In the past, we've worked with PMA

[46:51] as far as our cash flow analysis and we

[46:53] determined that we would need to do the

[46:55] official cash flow borrow and like um

[46:58] Kevin said with our consortium that

[46:59] we've used in the past few years. Um,

[47:02] but just as a safety net, um, we

[47:04] especially with Hazley taking over, we

[47:06] just want to make sure there is a, um, a

[47:09] backup. I don't anticipate using it at

[47:11] this point. If we do, we just pay the

[47:13] interest on how long we uh, have it out.

[47:16] We don't access it, we don't pay any

[47:17] interest. Um, so and, uh, when we access

[47:21] it, we'll keep the board up to date, but

[47:22] at this point, I anticipate that at all.

[47:24] And went with the local bank. Obviously,

[47:27] we have had a line of credit in the past

[47:29] was incredible. I think the last two or

[47:31] three years we haven't re re applied it

[47:34] or re-uped it. So just wanted to put

[47:37] that in place. So for future if it's

[47:39] needed we uh we have that.

[47:44] Thank you. Any board member questions or

[47:46] discussion on this agenda item or

[47:48] corresponding motion

[47:53] » hearing? Seeing none, all those in favor

[47:55] of that motion signify by saying I.

[47:57] >> I. I. Anyone opposed? Say nay.

[48:01] Any abstensions?

[48:05] Motion carries on a voice vote. Next

[48:08] item on our agenda is proposed facility

[48:11] study for Mel High School. Attaches a

[48:13] topic summary sheet from Shannon Murray.

[48:16] This has been reviewed from the

[48:18] facilities and finance HR committee's

[48:20] perspectives with the recommended

[48:22] motion. Anyone on the board willing to

[48:25] make a motion on this agenda item?

[48:28] Donna,

[48:28] >> I move to approve of CISA 10 to provide

[48:30] a feasibility study of for Merrell High

[48:32] School in the amount of $17,000 with the

[48:34] fee taken out of fund 46.

[48:37] >> Motion by Donna, second by Amber. Any

[48:40] discussion

[48:43] or questions in regards to this agenda

[48:45] item or corresponding motion?

[48:50] Anything to share on that? And this is a

[48:52] second study and working with CISA

[48:55] again. There's certainly some savings

[48:56] going with CISA 10. We've learned that

[48:59] along the way.

[49:01] Some reminders after we get the study,

[49:03] Shannon.

[49:05] Just for the people not maybe with us

[49:09] and watching on video that that will be

[49:12] all put together or just a reminder even

[49:14] for the board.

[49:15] >> Sure. This particular uh phase if you

[49:17] will uh is a continuation of what we did

[49:20] last winter at the middle school. This is a feasibility study to see if

[49:24] high school has the capacity uh to

[49:28] become a 612 or 712 school building and

[49:32] then uh once we get that information

[49:34] back I can see a phase three involving

[49:37] community well eventually involving

[49:39] community. My goal is to have some

[49:41] recommendation to the

[49:46] whole

[49:50] any board member questions in regards to

[49:53] this agenda item or corresponding motion

[50:00] hearing or seeing none. All those in

[50:01] favor of that motion signify by saying

[50:03] I.

[50:04] >> I. Those opposed say nay.

[50:08] Do we have any abstensions?

[50:12] That motion carries on a voice vote.

[50:15] Next item on our agenda is additional

[50:17] positions up to 3.0 FTE special

[50:20] education aids. The topic summary sheet

[50:23] was provided by Amber Alooa. That was

[50:27] reviewed from a finance, human

[50:29] resources, and CTP committee perspective

[50:32] with a corresponding motion. Any board

[50:34] members willing to make a motion on this

[50:36] agenda item? A

[50:39] member

[50:39] >> I recommend approval of the additional

[50:42] up to 3.0 FTE special education position

[50:46] which will be funded through the general

[50:48] funded special education.

[50:51] >> Motion by Amber. We have a second.

[50:53] by Paul. Any discussion or

[50:56] questions in regards to this agenda item

[50:59] or its corresponding motion?

[51:05] Any discussion or questions?

[51:08] Hearing and seeing none, all those in

[51:10] favor of that motion signify by saying

[51:12] I. I.

[51:13] >> I. Anyone opposed? Say n.

[51:17] We have any abstensions.

[51:21] Next on our agenda is the deaf and heart

[51:23] of hearing contracted services topic

[51:26] summary sheet also provided by Amber.

[51:30] This has been reviewed by CPP and

[51:32] finance human resources committee. Any

[51:37] board members with willing to make a

[51:39] motion on this agenda item?

[51:46] » John, the formal names are scaring me.

[51:49] >> There you go. [clears throat] Uh

[51:51] recommend um motion to approve the

[51:54] contracted services provider of Shannon

[51:58] Sie Miller Jensen MSE deaf and heart and

[52:02] hearing educational consulting LLC

[52:05] beginning with the 2026 2027 school year

[52:09] paid through the special education flow

[52:12] through funding.

[52:13] >> Motion by John, second by Amber. Any

[52:17] discussion? Clarifying questions in

[52:19] regards to this agenda item or

[52:22] corresponding motion.

[52:28] Any discussion or questions in regards

[52:30] to this agenda item or corresponding

[52:31] motion

[52:34] hearing? And seeing none, all those in

[52:35] favor of that motion signify by saying

[52:37] I. I.

[52:39] >> Anyone opposed say nay.

[52:43] >> Any abstensions?

[52:47] Motion carries on a voice code.

[52:50] Next on our agenda, we have board

[52:53] vacancy interview questions. U board

[52:57] member requested maybe some revamping

[52:59] and some other uh reviewing of that.

[53:02] Some highlights there Shannon before I

[53:05] turn it turn it over to the board. Uh

[53:08] any anything specific anyone wants to go

[53:11] through? I think from my perspective,

[53:14] we've had similar questions for a long

[53:17] time and it was kind of

[53:21] uh time to revamp them and one of the

[53:23] board members said we had some

[53:25] interaction and asked about some

[53:29] questions based on I would say district

[53:32] or other district history perhaps.

[53:36] >> Yeah, I mean I the one that made the

[53:37] request. Uh, one of the things that I

[53:41] would be interested in knowing ahead of

[53:43] time of an interview is whether or not

[53:44] the candidate ever worked for the

[53:47] district. Um, not that that would

[53:49] exclude a person, but I just want to

[53:51] know. And what happens is is, you know,

[53:53] maybe they work for the district 10

[53:54] years ago. Fine. I just would want to

[53:57] know that ahead of time as board members

[53:59] turn over and historians are no longer

[54:02] around the table to give back stories.

[54:05] Um, I'd like to know if someone was

[54:07] here. Did they did they resign? Did they

[54:10] retire? Um, you know, was it in good

[54:13] standing? Those types of things, which

[54:15] apparently we can legally ask um

[54:19] according to

[54:21] Boardman Clark's um kind of guidance.

[54:25] And I don't know, I just feel as though

[54:28] um

[54:30] when you want to join a board, you could

[54:32] say it was a banking board and you were

[54:34] a prior vice president of the bank 10

[54:38] years ago. Um I would want to know that

[54:42] ahead of time if I was on the board, if

[54:43] I was adopting a new member, there was

[54:46] history there. So whether or not we want

[54:48] to look at all of the questions, I know

[54:51] last time we had a vacancy, I believe

[54:52] there was nine and it seemed a bit maybe

[54:57] much or maybe a bit too procedural.

[55:00] And whether or not we want to address

[55:02] that before we find ourselves in a

[55:05] situation where we have to do it again.

[55:07] When we have to do it again, then it's

[55:09] hurry up and let's find another board

[55:11] member where now we're not doing it. we

[55:14] can we can look at the questions. So

[55:16] that was the premise of the the request

[55:19] if it's of the interest of the board.

[55:21] I'm just one of nine. So

[55:22] >> is that something that should be

[55:24] included in their application

[55:27] >> when you apply for the board? Couldn't that just be included instead

[55:30] of asking a question have them fill that

[55:33] out on the application?

[55:34] >> Do we have an application?

[55:36] >> Yeah.

[55:37] >> Two questions in advance.

[55:39] like a cover lettering

[55:42] in

[55:46] question.

[55:47] >> So we don't

[55:51] » believe this is our process because it's

[55:52] our process,

[55:53] >> right?

[55:55] >> So those two questions could turn into

[55:57] six and the nine questions could go back

[56:00] to five. It's whatever we desire as an

[56:03] entity,

[56:04] >> right? So I guess that's what I'm saying

[56:06] is I would like to know that information

[56:08] as part of an application process. So if

[56:10] someone's applying for the board, they

[56:12] will have to be make me aware that they

[56:16] have been prior compensated by the

[56:18] district as an employee. And if they

[56:21] were left under

[56:24] good terms, great. You know, if they

[56:26] were non-renewed,

[56:28] I would probably want to know that. Um

[56:31] it's just basically some standard

[56:33] information ahead of time because it's a

[56:36] former employee at that employer at that

[56:39] point. You're joining a board of a

[56:40] foreign employer. It doesn't mean you're

[56:42] excluded. It just means I would like to

[56:43] know that and we have no specific

[56:46] documentation

[56:47] that gives me that information to take

[56:49] into consideration. So I kind of like to

[56:52] force the information

[56:55] >> to go up that. Are you looking just for

[56:56] employees or those compensated by the

[56:59] district? You have contract with you

[57:01] know some of that as well.

[57:03] >> That would be great.

[57:04] >> Absolutely.

[57:06] >> If you do work for the district, right?

[57:08] Because if as a treasure that'd be a

[57:10] possible conflict of interest and then

[57:12] again doesn't exclude you from joining,

[57:14] but I might expect an abstension um if

[57:17] your job is to pay parking lots and

[57:21] we're voting on a parking lot payment,

[57:23] you know. So, it's um those are just a

[57:26] few things that I'd like to know.

[57:31] to the stop by just the applicants or

[57:33] applicants family any close immediate

[57:37] family

[57:40] » I didn't give that any thought

[57:43] >> I think there's a line there to cross

[57:47] we're we're concerned about the

[57:48] applicant could we

[57:51] >> legally

[57:53] properly ask about the the rest of the

[57:55] family I don't I think you're you're

[57:57] crossing

[57:58] Okay.

[58:06] » Do you want to develop a process for

[58:11] developing the new question set or

[58:15] >> Yes. I guess that would be where where I

[58:17] was going to go next once we had

[58:20] this kind of brainstorm which I think I

[58:23] want to say we've exhausted but I don't

[58:24] see any more hands up. So what would we

[58:27] see as the next step looking at this? I

[58:31] didn't necessarily see this as specific

[58:33] committee work, but I would think this

[58:36] is something we could get a draft of

[58:38] committee of one.

[58:41] We have a committee of one that has

[58:43] connections with all the districts and

[58:46] she would have access to a lot of

[58:48] things. No, I'd be with the person

[58:50] you're right.

[58:51] >> I mean, not not trying to put more work

[58:53] on Tammy, but she could short circuit

[58:56] our work and get some suggestions or

[58:58] recommendations and we could work from

[59:00] there.

[59:01] >> I will say when I when I did get this

[59:02] free legal advice conference and I

[59:05] whatever we can come up with, I would

[59:07] take that back to those people specific

[59:09] questions. Um they did share that this

[59:11] is very unusual they

[59:15] kind of question

[59:17] >> and so I don't know how much contact

[59:22] to come up with the questions

[59:23] >> right so

[59:26] district

[59:33] » it's called innovation

[59:35] >> see what you [clears throat]

[59:36] >> trend setters

[59:39] make

[59:42] I guess my question would be if if they

[59:44] ran though, um you wouldn't know that

[59:46] like if their name was on the ballot,

[59:48] you wouldn't have that background. Um so

[59:53] not sure how much difference it would

[59:54] make for the onesie twoosie like me. I

[59:56] didn't work for the district just in

[59:58] case you're wanting to. No.

[1:00:00] >> But like if they're running, you know,

[1:00:01] we won't have any of that information

[1:00:03] anyway, right?

[1:00:05] Well, if you're running for public

[1:00:06] office properly,

[1:00:08] uh you're going to have in in your

[1:00:11] resume, you're going to want all the

[1:00:13] pertinent facts of your life, what

[1:00:15] you've done, where you've been connected

[1:00:17] any way, shape, or form with this

[1:00:19] business, uh to show that you have

[1:00:21] experience, you have knowledge, and you

[1:00:23] can carry on and and move along and not

[1:00:26] you're new, but you're not 100% new. So,

[1:00:30] you know, if you read a candidate's

[1:00:31] resume,

[1:00:34] >> I would think that should all been in

[1:00:35] there. Just

[1:00:37] >> Well, yeah, but we don't

[1:00:38] >> if you run for office in the past once

[1:00:40] or twice or twice, uh, have experience

[1:00:42] in what you want to do and what you

[1:00:44] don't want to leave anything to to

[1:00:45] chance. You want it all out there. So,

[1:00:48] >> I think it's I think it's a fair

[1:00:50] question. I really do. I think

[1:00:53] you can be you could ask could you ask

[1:00:54] that question on when they do their

[1:00:57] application their resume have include

[1:00:59] all

[1:01:01] places of employment

[1:01:03] the past 10 years 20 years

[1:01:07] probably get too specific here I don't

[1:01:09] know but just a thought

[1:01:11] >> yeah I mean to address the the question

[1:01:13] is like again if the electorate wants to

[1:01:15] vote anyone in obviously that's the

[1:01:17] American way but it's once we're once

[1:01:19] I'm called to cast a vote

[1:01:21] then I'm going to use my own

[1:01:24] you know collective judgment and that

[1:01:25] would be a piece I would be interested

[1:01:27] in and of course I don't want to like

[1:01:29] depend on someone to tell me right

[1:01:33] that's kind of the historical part you

[1:01:35] know like oh you know did you hear so if

[1:01:39] we could just be upfront on the

[1:01:40] application because they have to go and

[1:01:41] fill it out where it says did you you

[1:01:44] know work for the district under what

[1:01:46] capacity did you work for the district

[1:01:47] what years

[1:01:49] >> and then it's just it's done. It's there

[1:01:51] to look at

[1:01:52] >> and you can take that into

[1:01:53] consideration. Um, but quite honestly,

[1:01:57] like if you were, I'm just going to be

[1:01:59] blunt, terminated from your job in the

[1:02:02] district and then within

[1:02:07] six months you're sitting in front of me

[1:02:09] asking to join the board, I may be

[1:02:11] hesitant to invite you. Now, the public

[1:02:14] can by all means, but I'm not sure I

[1:02:17] would be casting a vote in favor of it.

[1:02:19] And because we have full autonomy to

[1:02:22] make that decision according to the

[1:02:26] law

[1:02:27] >> discriminatory

[1:02:28] >> not discriminatory right so based on

[1:02:30] qualifications

[1:02:32] um we don't have to invite anyone under

[1:02:36] that condition. So it's a really one-off

[1:02:38] circumstance when we have a board

[1:02:39] vacancy but I think um I don't know it's

[1:02:43] just one of those things that I would

[1:02:44] like to see and I guess if five other

[1:02:46] five others want to

[1:02:49] then I'm on the right track. If not,

[1:02:52] >> well then you can stop.

[1:02:54] >> Would you just put a question on there

[1:02:56] when you're asking about their

[1:02:57] employment history? Ask a simple

[1:03:00] question. Are you eligible for rehire

[1:03:01] here?

[1:03:04] You know, and if it says something

[1:03:06] negative, you know, they say yes, no.

[1:03:08] They put a no down. Okay,

[1:03:10] >> you don't have to ask any further, but

[1:03:12] you know there's something out there.

[1:03:15] >> We can work on I guess the verbage.

[1:03:17] whether or not we want to ascertain the

[1:03:19] information on the application.

[1:03:21] >> Give an example of how deep you've been

[1:03:23] delved into this.

[1:03:24] >> I think that question you'd be stopped

[1:03:26] on. I don't think you could ask that

[1:03:28] question.

[1:03:30] >> Somebody calls and asks you for a

[1:03:32] reference.

[1:03:33] Okay. You can answer honestly to the

[1:03:36] best of your opinion. Are they asked are

[1:03:38] they eligible for rehire? It's the only

[1:03:40] question I ever asked. And if they said

[1:03:42] yes, fine. You knew they were a good

[1:03:44] employee. They said no. That meant

[1:03:47] something happened there that led to a

[1:03:49] termination cost.

[1:03:50] >> Are you asking the past employer or you

[1:03:52] asking the person?

[1:03:54] >> We're asking the person because there's

[1:03:56] people that were put down on their thing

[1:03:59] that they're eligible for rehire when

[1:04:01] they left on their own because they knew

[1:04:05] they were going to be terminated or

[1:04:07] something.

[1:04:09] So it gets a little more interesting

[1:04:11] because you get into an ethical

[1:04:13] perspective on how you how they view

[1:04:16] things and how they present themselves

[1:04:17] to you because if you know something

[1:04:19] else down the line and you find out here

[1:04:21] when you're interviewing it's just a big

[1:04:23] gray area you're going into

[1:04:27] because I haven't been involved in that

[1:04:28] process. Um

[1:04:31] we're talking about filling midterm

[1:04:33] absences or vacancies I should say. Um

[1:04:35] if we had 12 people apply for a vacancy

[1:04:39] we would interview 12.

[1:04:42] So maybe those questions are just

[1:04:48] but there is a value to presenter

[1:04:57] [laughter]

[1:05:04] interview or pre-screener. We're not

[1:05:06] changing anything other than not having

[1:05:08] to ask it as an additional question of

[1:05:10] the potential n that we're looking to

[1:05:13] narrow down

[1:05:16] so they're prepared and have that

[1:05:18] information andor included in a resume

[1:05:21] or not included and just answered

[1:05:23] as part of the other two questions. Like

[1:05:26] I said, we could increase the two

[1:05:28] questions up front to four or five and

[1:05:30] then also whittle down the ones asked

[1:05:34] during an interview to a handful as

[1:05:37] well.

[1:05:39] >> Yeah. Because if you had 12, you'd be

[1:05:41] asking

[1:05:43] 108

[1:05:44] questions. [clears throat]

[1:05:46] So, you know, it's there might be some

[1:05:49] benefit to whittling down the the big

[1:05:51] list, too.

[1:05:52] >> If you had 12, I'd go to the school

[1:05:53] district,

[1:05:54] >> right? Right.

[1:05:58] So, do you want to do this as a

[1:06:02] number one you want to take some type of

[1:06:04] straw poll to see whether people are

[1:06:06] interested in that information being

[1:06:08] included in the packet?

[1:06:09] >> Can I ask one more question?

[1:06:11] >> Sure.

[1:06:12] >> If uh

[1:06:15] if you do this up front the application

[1:06:18] process you're applying for the board

[1:06:21] and this is where you're going to ask

[1:06:22] these questions. Are you have you ever

[1:06:24] been

[1:06:26] working whatever?

[1:06:33] Would you be would you be creating

[1:06:38] some kind of a hostile environment at

[1:06:40] that point?

[1:06:42] Why do they want to know? I worked here.

[1:06:44] Why would they want to know? And you I I

[1:06:47] agree with you. I think that's a great

[1:06:49] idea, but I'm just I'm concerned with

[1:06:50] how we're going to do it. mechanics of this how this is going to happen and

[1:06:55] at what point in time is is a proper

[1:06:56] time to ask that. Is it is it proper to

[1:06:59] ask it right up front?

[1:07:02] Would you eliminate the person uh at

[1:07:06] that point if the answer came back

[1:07:08] something you didn't like?

[1:07:13] » I think it'd be up to each individual

[1:07:15] board member on how they use the

[1:07:16] information. Um I mean I think that's

[1:07:20] the The only thing I'm requesting is the

[1:07:23] awareness piece.

[1:07:25] >> So that if I'm looking at an applicant,

[1:07:28] they have some past

[1:07:32] they have a past relationship with the

[1:07:34] district that that's you know something

[1:07:38] that you're made aware of.

[1:07:43] And then

[1:07:44] >> I think you should wait until the actual

[1:07:47] interview. If you put it out on the

[1:07:49] cover letter that they got to answer the

[1:07:52] question, they might not return. They

[1:07:55] might not apply just because they think

[1:07:58] there's something wrong. And we might

[1:08:00] lose a good candidate just because they

[1:08:03] didn't apply. They might see those

[1:08:06] questions and say, you know, they're not

[1:08:10] going to hire me. I work for school or

[1:08:13] something like that.

[1:08:17] should wait until they actually come for

[1:08:19] the interview.

[1:08:24] » I think it's just determining what we're

[1:08:25] trying to get from that question. Is it

[1:08:27] their connection then are we say do you

[1:08:29] have children in the district or have

[1:08:31] you had children in the district? I

[1:08:33] guess figuring out what our goal is

[1:08:35] would help kind of figure out how we

[1:08:37] want to.

[1:08:44] » Well, and I I would say that's not a

[1:08:46] collective at that point. So, it's a

[1:08:49] piece of information

[1:08:51] that literally I would just want to

[1:08:54] know, have you ever worked for the

[1:08:56] district in the past? Um, if we don't

[1:08:59] want to go into

[1:09:01] um, did you resign, retire, or

[1:09:04] terminated, that's certainly fine. But

[1:09:08] because it's a former employer

[1:09:11] and you're asking the board to

[1:09:15] bring you into a governing position,

[1:09:18] it would just seem like that would be a

[1:09:20] good piece of information to know and we

[1:09:22] don't require it. So, um, and there's

[1:09:26] really no format to me

[1:09:28] asking it based on our current style. I

[1:09:30] don't get the free format questions

[1:09:32] during the interview. So, it's either

[1:09:36] asked or it goes unasked.

[1:09:39] And I'm just asking that it be asked, I

[1:09:42] guess.

[1:09:43] >> Can I just change? Have you ever been

[1:09:46] compensated by the district for services

[1:09:49] or something because that would be for

[1:09:51] contractors, you know, people

[1:10:03] Um,

[1:10:07] » yeah, I'm fine with putting something

[1:10:09] together, but I guess let's go back to

[1:10:11] set of a formal motion. Can we just have

[1:10:13] a draw poll? Is this is this worth doing

[1:10:16] some additional work? Can I just see a

[1:10:17] show of hands for board members that

[1:10:19] think this is we're on the right track

[1:10:22] of of

[1:10:24] reinvigorating and adding and taking

[1:10:27] away some questions from this process to

[1:10:29] be prepared. So, can I see a show of

[1:10:31] hands? Who thinks should do that? So, I

[1:10:33] think we're we're open-minded to

[1:10:36] changing or improving that process. We

[1:10:38] have some guidance.

[1:10:40] Board members all right with Tammy,

[1:10:42] Shannon, and I getting a draft of that,

[1:10:44] bringing it back to to review by

[1:10:47] everybody. I think we have enough

[1:10:50] information unless somebody

[1:10:52] heard something that they want to add

[1:10:54] right now. I certainly will take that in

[1:10:57] consideration. I think I got the scope

[1:10:59] of what we're looking at. I'll take a

[1:11:00] look at the questions that people

[1:11:05] fill in up front before the interview.

[1:11:08] Tried to be as inclusive as we can and

[1:11:11] not eliminate a potentially good

[1:11:15] candidate, not scare people away

[1:11:17] according to what Nubs was kind of

[1:11:20] picturing. And then but how do we also

[1:11:24] we came up with the nine questions for

[1:11:26] the interview. It was based on a

[1:11:28] different set of circumstances at a

[1:11:29] different time. How do we get to today?

[1:11:31] How do we ask the right questions and go

[1:11:34] from there? So everyone's all right with

[1:11:37] that. I think we'll understand what we

[1:11:39] need to do and we'll take that forward

[1:11:41] and bring it back to everyone.

[1:11:44] >> Does anyone have the history on the nine

[1:11:46] questions? like how long ago those were

[1:11:48] developed and who developed them or

[1:11:51] >> I could look it up, but I knew do know

[1:11:53] since I was here

[1:11:55] um for one of the interviews um there

[1:12:00] was I think it was the board officers if

[1:12:02] I'm not mistaken. they got together and

[1:12:06] came up with the questions and then

[1:12:08] every year I every time we've had a

[1:12:11] vacancy I think it's just

[1:12:14] no nobody's changed I don't know

[1:12:18] >> we did change from six or seven

[1:12:21] questions to nine at one time everyone

[1:12:24] asked a question the board president has

[1:12:26] asked all the questions in the last few

[1:12:28] so we've kind of gone back and forth

[1:12:30] we've assigned a question and sit down

[1:12:33] and look at question number one and kind

[1:12:34] of look where we're seated and

[1:12:37] Jacqueline gets question two. So if you

[1:12:38] want to fine-tune that and then report

[1:12:40] back to the board, we tried that one

[1:12:42] time. So we've done some different

[1:12:45] things. I think to Tammy's point, one of

[1:12:48] the first goes at that was having the

[1:12:51] board officers do something.

[1:12:54] >> So this this could be perhaps a

[1:12:57] 10year-old

[1:12:58] document if not longer would predates

[1:13:01] everyone on the board. So it might be worthwhile to it's more than 13

[1:13:07] because we used the same one when we

[1:13:08] started.

[1:13:09] >> They were rewarded since then but I I

[1:13:12] answer I answered different questions my

[1:13:14] first time.

[1:13:15] >> I tried before being elected.

[1:13:17] >> All right. So

[1:13:19] >> correct.

[1:13:20] It's been a process

[1:13:23] that that can be reviewed. So I think we

[1:13:26] have a plan and we I know we have a plan

[1:13:28] and we'll go with that.

[1:13:33] Next on our agenda is

[1:13:36] rethinking board recognition. Getting

[1:13:38] some discussion going tonight. We had

[1:13:42] one item for board recognition.

[1:13:46] Some of the things I'm I'm hearing

[1:13:48] talking to different board members.

[1:13:49] Maybe it's the title. Maybe it's what

[1:13:52] that looks looks like and what we're

[1:13:54] trying to achieve using some other words

[1:13:56] that

[1:13:58] from this last topic and some of the

[1:14:00] questions asked. So, um

[1:14:04] I I think we've tried to refine this.

[1:14:06] has been a topic that went back

[1:14:08] almost a couple of years. We we did have

[1:14:11] one night of board recognition that

[1:14:15] seemed like that was over half of the

[1:14:16] meeting. That was a scheduling thing and

[1:14:19] someone kind of turned that into their

[1:14:20] own awards ceremony, but that goes back

[1:14:23] to a couple Mays ago. But we'll live and learn. Correct. But I do think

[1:14:29] it is a a positive to

[1:14:33] celebrate and recognize those doing

[1:14:36] exceptional work in the district or for

[1:14:38] the district. But I I guess I'm hearing

[1:14:42] some different things. If it's the

[1:14:44] amount of time spent, how it is

[1:14:47] recognized that way, is it the title

[1:14:51] that it's board recognition, but that's

[1:14:54] really selected by the board president

[1:14:57] and superintendent coming from other

[1:14:59] recommendations.

[1:15:01] So, I'm not sure if it's the title, the

[1:15:03] amount,

[1:15:05] there should be more of a some

[1:15:09] information behind that or better

[1:15:11] defined. So, I guess I'm going to turn

[1:15:13] it over to the board for some discussion

[1:15:16] of let's start with everyone's take on

[1:15:19] board recognition. Is it

[1:15:23] um title? Is it the right right thing to

[1:15:27] continue to do? Any topics that way?

[1:15:33] I I appreciate the tone that it it sets

[1:15:38] even if tonight's recipient was not

[1:15:41] there.

[1:15:44] A lot of the topics we talk about are businessoriented

[1:15:49] while they're very needed. We talk about

[1:15:53] audits and finances and policies.

[1:15:57] It's nice to hear some of the other

[1:16:00] things besides from our students that

[1:16:02] teams are doing well and other things

[1:16:05] are happening. But I'm not sure if it

[1:16:08] it's wording because it sounds like the

[1:16:11] board is collectively by a majority

[1:16:14] selecting the recognition or and then we

[1:16:18] should do it in a different manner or

[1:16:19] call it a district recognition if it's

[1:16:22] not

[1:16:23] that. I I'm not sure. I've heard

[1:16:25] different things from different board

[1:16:27] members. So, I guess I'd like to

[1:16:28] collaborate here and come up with some

[1:16:32] thoughts. So,

[1:16:34] John, is there something you taking some

[1:16:36] notes and Brett? So, I'm going to turn

[1:16:39] it over to you guys thoughts.

[1:16:44] » Well, I'll be honest. When we had the 40

[1:16:46] minute recognition evening, I spoke up

[1:16:49] um because [clears throat] that was a

[1:16:50] lot uh for one evening. And I I've never

[1:16:54] like I said the last meeting, I've never

[1:16:56] really understand the process by which

[1:16:58] one gets recognized. Can anyone in the

[1:17:01] district

[1:17:02] make the proposal? Um and it just needs

[1:17:06] to get cleared through the chairperson

[1:17:09] and the superintendent and it's a board

[1:17:11] recognition and I if that's fine, that's fine. Um

[1:17:18] but

[1:17:21] and I'm not opposed to recognitions at

[1:17:23] all, but it again it's um if the board

[1:17:26] is recognizing someone

[1:17:29] um sometimes the first time you read it

[1:17:32] is here, right? Uh

[1:17:35] it just seems a little bit

[1:17:39] administratively directed

[1:17:42] and not so much recognition of a board.

[1:17:45] Sure.

[1:17:47] >> If that paints at least my

[1:17:49] interpretation of it.

[1:17:50] >> No, that makes sense. One of the things

[1:17:51] I was going to add is I guess I was

[1:17:53] taking something away from some of the

[1:17:56] trips to state convention is they call

[1:17:57] it board recognition

[1:18:00] because you're at a formal board

[1:18:01] meeting, right? So, it's a regular board

[1:18:04] meeting. So,

[1:18:07] that was where the title came from. I

[1:18:09] mean, we we could finesse that and call

[1:18:12] it district recognition and then have

[1:18:14] that a directive of the superintendent

[1:18:16] to bounce off the chair or whatever we

[1:18:19] want to do. That is the process a board

[1:18:22] member or an administrator

[1:18:25] can recommend somebody for recognition.

[1:18:29] It does then come through u Tammy,

[1:18:33] Shannon, and myself currently to say is,

[1:18:37] you know, do we have four

[1:18:40] individuals or groups being recognized

[1:18:42] and not trying to take over a meeting by

[1:18:45] having 40 minutes worth, but what does

[1:18:48] that look like? And try to balance that

[1:18:50] and yet make it timely. Somebody went to

[1:18:53] state for an event. Let's not wait for

[1:18:57] four months to bring them in. recognize

[1:18:59] that

[1:19:01] and we do try to set a certain threshold

[1:19:04] yet be consistent if you recognize one

[1:19:08] organization or peer group that you're

[1:19:11] being fair in doing that and equitable

[1:19:14] and talking to another like group. So

[1:19:16] we're congratulating a PTO at Washington

[1:19:19] and a good PTO does something similar.

[1:19:23] Thank them likewise. But looking to

[1:19:26] fine-tune that and explain the process

[1:19:28] to board members and the public.

[1:19:32] I guess that's the beginning point is

[1:19:34] I've been here for a long time and I've

[1:19:36] never known the process. So

[1:19:39] >> um at least I'm now aware of how things

[1:19:42] get placed on the agenda and who can

[1:19:45] place it on the agenda and how it gets

[1:19:47] to that point. But up until now I didn't

[1:19:50] know.

[1:19:51] That's why we're having the discussion.

[1:19:54] >> Great. Amber,

[1:19:55] >> I like the district recognition title to

[1:19:57] it. Um, and then also I don't know if

[1:20:00] you want to consider maybe

[1:20:03] that people can fill out

[1:20:08] many people.

[1:20:10] It's all there

[1:20:12] information.

[1:20:15] » Sure.

[1:20:20] » Certainly put something like that

[1:20:22] together. Paul,

[1:20:25] >> if you change it to district

[1:20:26] recognition,

[1:20:28] then why is it in front of the board?

[1:20:31] Then shouldn't it be the district

[1:20:34] representing recognizing?

[1:20:36] I I like the board the idea of board

[1:20:39] recognition. It's something that we as

[1:20:42] board members can say, "Hey, you know,

[1:20:44] we recognize that you've done something

[1:20:46] good. You've helped the district out.

[1:20:48] You've helped us out." And my thought is

[1:20:51] I I would leave it at at the board

[1:20:52] recognition.

[1:20:55] >> We could even combine that if it make

[1:20:57] people feel good. Board board's district

[1:20:59] recognition. I mean, if we want to get

[1:21:02] into word smithing, I I think we want to

[1:21:05] go back to John's point. What is the

[1:21:07] process? Understand the process. And are

[1:21:09] we all right with how we find

[1:21:13] have been fine-tuning that or is there

[1:21:15] some other suggestions such as a form

[1:21:17] and a procedure?

[1:21:28] I like the idea of a form um even just a

[1:21:31] Google form where it gets sent directly

[1:21:32] to review or we I'm sure Angel could put

[1:21:36] it on the site. That way it's also

[1:21:37] visible because I'm sure John's not the

[1:21:39] only one that doesn't know how somebody

[1:21:41] gets a recognition to make it a little

[1:21:43] more transparent.

[1:21:49] » Any other thoughts or questions

[1:21:52] discussion?

[1:21:56] I think it's worth considering because

[1:21:58] it's like

[1:22:00] goes back to

[1:22:03] there's nine of us and if it's board

[1:22:06] recognized and

[1:22:08] it says it's board recognized like I I

[1:22:10] understand like

[1:22:13] I understand the concept. Um

[1:22:17] however one ninth of me let's say we

[1:22:20] recognize something that I don't want to

[1:22:21] recognize. Well, I mean, like, not that

[1:22:23] it would happen, but if the board is

[1:22:26] stamping it, I never got a chance to

[1:22:28] stamp it till I sat here and heard it.

[1:22:30] Um,

[1:22:34] is it really that big of a deal to me?

[1:22:36] Also, no, it's really not. Um,

[1:22:40] but if you want to if we want to use the term board in in a literal sense,

[1:22:45] it's us voting on it or not voting on it

[1:22:49] if we're putting our name on it. Not

[1:22:51] that we not that any of us would

[1:22:53] probably disagree with anything that

[1:22:54] comes before us on it. Um or

[1:22:58] um it's more of the

[1:23:02] procedural side of it. You know, we can

[1:23:04] be very uptight on procedure in certain

[1:23:07] aspects and then loosey goosey on the

[1:23:09] other. Um, so I think it's

[1:23:14] my one n opinion is not overly concerned

[1:23:18] about either way, but if we want to go

[1:23:20] down to the literal sense of is it board

[1:23:22] recognized, technically it's not.

[1:23:24] >> Sure. And it's not in a bylaw or policy

[1:23:28] one way or the other. It's not in the

[1:23:30] duties of the chair or

[1:23:34] any officer or anything that way. It was

[1:23:37] something that was

[1:23:39] has been an opportunity for the board to

[1:23:42] do since before I was on the board. I

[1:23:44] asked Tammy for some history.

[1:23:47] It's been a long time.

[1:23:48] >> It's been before I got here and this is

[1:23:51] my 20th year

[1:23:52] >> and we did ramp it up some time ago

[1:23:55] because

[1:23:57] perhaps we had more negative leaning

[1:24:01] public comment for a while. So, we did

[1:24:04] want to

[1:24:06] a little more community engagement in my

[1:24:08] opinion as to talking about positive

[1:24:11] things that maybe were forgotten by

[1:24:14] student board reps because it was at

[1:24:16] different buildings other than the high

[1:24:17] school. That was my thought. I I do

[1:24:21] agree with what you're saying. It's one

[1:24:24] ninth of an opinion

[1:24:26] and trying to send those all out. We we

[1:24:29] could in advance if that made a

[1:24:32] difference, but it could just be whoever

[1:24:34] is the

[1:24:36] part of that or officers whatever. Does

[1:24:39] a one nth person

[1:24:41] want to think about voting no when the

[1:24:44] other eight vote yes?

[1:24:47] >> Recognition [snorts]

[1:24:50] >> I think I think

[1:24:52] you know and it's an honorary

[1:24:54] recognition to to your point. We're not

[1:24:56] doing a motion. We're not doing a

[1:24:57] resolution. It is a

[1:25:00] >> I don't want to say feel good. It is

[1:25:02] part of

[1:25:03] >> something in their life

[1:25:05] >> to get an opportunity here to be

[1:25:07] recognized. What's it what's it take?

[1:25:09] What's it cost? It's just

[1:25:13] much

[1:25:13] >> I don't think anybody's proposing

[1:25:15] getting rid of it.

[1:25:16] >> I think the conversation stunned of

[1:25:19] >> what's the process? What's the

[1:25:20] procedure? And also, I mean, it

[1:25:23] literally says board approval. So, I

[1:25:25] mean,

[1:25:28] that's I think where the conversation

[1:25:30] started from. So, I don't think

[1:25:30] anybody's proposing elimination of it,

[1:25:32] and I don't think anybody's proposing

[1:25:34] voting on it on individuals. I'm just

[1:25:36] saying that that would be awkward. No.

[1:25:39] >> Yeah. No, I'm not.

[1:25:40] >> Here you are by a four fifth vote.

[1:25:42] >> Yeah, exactly.

[1:25:43] >> Eliminated from recognition this

[1:25:45] evening. I don't think

[1:25:47] >> I just go back to saying I didn't there

[1:25:49] was no process. like it. I would just

[1:25:51] wanted to know the process because I

[1:25:53] have sat through meetings where there

[1:25:55] was several of them that

[1:25:59] seem like they could be related to the

[1:26:01] presenter or to the administration and

[1:26:04] or they could be for snow removal which

[1:26:06] is someone's duty of their job and I'm

[1:26:08] like okay it's great thing but how did

[1:26:12] it really pass the litmus test of board

[1:26:14] recognition? So to be just blatantly

[1:26:17] honest, it's like as long as there's an

[1:26:19] established process and a gatekeeping,

[1:26:21] which it seems to be reestablished, I

[1:26:23] have no apparent problems with any of

[1:26:26] it. But for a while there, there was no

[1:26:31] I had no idea how they got here and they

[1:26:33] got here in mass and oftentimes

[1:26:35] repeating similar people. And so

[1:26:41] >> although there was there was a point of

[1:26:44] so

[1:26:46] we recognize Paul for snow removal. Now

[1:26:48] I have to recognize Brett and same

[1:26:52] quality of snow removal.

[1:26:53] >> You're not going to recognize me

[1:26:54] removing snow.

[1:26:56] >> Well, trampling it down and removing is

[1:26:58] a different story.

[1:26:58] >> Which then waters down the effectiveness

[1:27:00] of recognition. So just so that we have

[1:27:03] some type of structure.

[1:27:04] >> No, I I I agree.

[1:27:06] I think sometimes we

[1:27:10] maybe and I can only let something go

[1:27:13] through that should have been pushed

[1:27:15] back but

[1:27:19] learn from that and update the criteria

[1:27:23] and

[1:27:25] maybe that form will also

[1:27:30] I don't want to

[1:27:33] >> can we move on

[1:27:34] >> not have too anything on the form either

[1:27:36] so people don't fill out form. We can

[1:27:39] move on unless anyone else would like

[1:27:41] something else but there was nothing to

[1:27:43] >> just so we

[1:27:46] >> so at this point we are continuing to do

[1:27:48] it. Are we leaving the name the same or

[1:27:50] would we like that combined to core

[1:27:52] district recognition?

[1:27:55] Does

[1:27:55] >> everyone understand the process for now?

[1:28:01] >> Yep. I I understand now.

[1:28:03] >> No, I'm not picking on anyone. I was

[1:28:05] just making sure I explained it or we

[1:28:07] explained it and discussed it.

[1:28:11] >> All right,

[1:28:14] we will move forward. Next, we have a

[1:28:17] silverm donation for the football

[1:28:19] program. A donation form and topic

[1:28:21] summary sheet was put together by Chris

[1:28:24] Hunt. Due to the fact that the donation

[1:28:25] is over the $2500 [snorts]

[1:28:28] limit set in policy 7230, it does come

[1:28:31] to uh the board separately versus

[1:28:33] consent agenda for approval. There is a

[1:28:36] recommended motion. Anyone willing to

[1:28:38] make a motion on that agenda item?

[1:28:42] >> I move to approval the donation of the

[1:28:44] fourperson blocking sled and game balls

[1:28:47] from the silver end club valued at

[1:28:48] $10,486

[1:28:51] for support in enhancing the football

[1:28:52] program. Motion by Paul. We have a

[1:28:54] second.

[1:28:56] by Mike. Any discussion or

[1:28:59] questions in regards to that agenda

[1:29:01] item?

[1:29:03] >> I have a question. I I meant to reach

[1:29:04] out to Chris, but I'm kind of curious.

[1:29:06] Did it Trish? Maybe you know what

[1:29:09] happened to the old ones?

[1:29:12] >> The old one.

[1:29:13] >> The old blocking because those are those

[1:29:15] like big beam and the fake looking

[1:29:18] football players, right? They

[1:29:20] >> What happened to all the old ones? I

[1:29:21] think they put them on the burn pile for

[1:29:23] hopefully

[1:29:24] >> sometimes they get moved for the middle

[1:29:25] school repurposed

[1:29:29] >> and sometimes they do come up and I

[1:29:32] don't want to call it new technology but

[1:29:34] new things for safety so trying to

[1:29:38] eliminate concussions there's different

[1:29:40] sizes there's different things to

[1:29:42] utilize those precautions for a team

[1:29:47] I think just over time the

[1:29:51] And as you can see, the pricing has

[1:29:53] changed. So that's why it's not in the

[1:29:54] budget. So I believe coach gets an

[1:29:58] opportunity to ask the silver for

[1:30:00] certain things that he sees to be fit

[1:30:02] and then he can share the existing

[1:30:05] equipment down to middle school.

[1:30:08] >> Any additional

[1:30:10] questions or discussion on this?

[1:30:17] Seeing and hearing no additional

[1:30:18] questions on this item. All those in

[1:30:20] favor of that motion signify by saying

[1:30:22] I.

[1:30:23] >> I. Anyone opposed? Say nay. Any

[1:30:27] abstensions?

[1:30:30] Motion carries.

[1:30:33] Next on the agenda is Neola's volume 35

[1:30:36] number two technical corrections. Per

[1:30:38] bylaw 0131.3.

[1:30:40] Superintendent is authorized to review

[1:30:43] and make technical corrections to

[1:30:45] policies that have already been adopted

[1:30:47] through our normal rule making

[1:30:48] procedures. This is how we do that with

[1:30:51] there's overview and list of those

[1:30:53] technical corrections attached.

[1:30:57] There's not any motion required. It is

[1:30:59] justformational so you know what that

[1:31:02] looks like. Next, we will move on to

[1:31:06] consent agenda. Before I ask for someone

[1:31:09] to read the motion for consent agenda, I

[1:31:11] will ask any board members if they want

[1:31:13] any items individually pulled from

[1:31:16] consent agenda to be addressed

[1:31:18] individually.

[1:31:22] Otherwise, I would look for a consent

[1:31:24] agenda motion, please.

[1:31:30] Mike.

[1:31:31] >> Motion to approve consent agenda items A

[1:31:33] through E which includes policy 5136

[1:31:36] personal communication devices policy

[1:31:39] 5505 academic honesty policy 7440.02

[1:31:45] smart sensor and monitoring technology

[1:31:47] policy 7450

[1:31:49] technology policy 7540.03

[1:31:53] student technology acceptable use and

[1:31:56] safety policy 7540.04

[1:31:58] Staff technology acceptable use and

[1:32:00] safety policy 7540.08

[1:32:04] artificial intelligence AI policy 8310

[1:32:08] public records policy 8315

[1:32:11] preservation of records and litigation

[1:32:14] holds policy 8330 student records policy

[1:32:16] 8330.01 1 authorized acquisition of

[1:32:20] student personal information policy

[1:32:22] 142231224122

[1:32:26] non-discrimination

[1:32:28] equal employment opportunity and

[1:32:30] anti-harassment replacement policies

[1:32:34] policy 31614161

[1:32:37] unrequested legal absences fitness for

[1:32:40] duty policy 2260 non-discrimination and

[1:32:43] access to equal education opportunity

[1:32:45] policy 22601

[1:32:48] Section 504, ADA, prohibition against

[1:32:52] discrimination based on disability.

[1:32:55] Policy 2266, non-discrimination on the

[1:32:57] basis of sex and education programs or

[1:33:00] activities. Policy 2411, school

[1:33:03] counseling and academic and career

[1:33:05] planning. Policy 2414,

[1:33:08] human growth and development policy

[1:33:10] 2421, career and technical education

[1:33:13] program policy 5120, assignment within

[1:33:16] district polic. 5516 student hazing

[1:33:19] policy 5517 student anti-arassment

[1:33:22] policy 5517.01

[1:33:25] bullying policy 5730 equal access for

[1:33:29] nond district sponsored student clubs

[1:33:31] and activities policy 8913 section 5048

[1:33:36] prohibition against disability

[1:33:38] discrimination in employment and policy

[1:33:41] 8310.01

[1:33:43] Public records feed scheduled the

[1:33:45] deletion of policies 1422.02

[1:33:50] 3122.024122.02

[1:33:54] 2 non-discrimination based on genetic

[1:33:58] information of the employee and policies

[1:34:00] 1662

[1:34:02] 3362

[1:34:04] 4362

[1:34:05] anti-arasment minutes of the August 19th

[1:34:09] 2026

[1:34:11] meeting claims vouchers and receipts

[1:34:13] totaling 2,121,670.13

[1:34:17] donations totaling $2,688

[1:34:22] and the attached Personnel report

[1:34:24] contingent upon the release of contracts

[1:34:25] for hirings and upon the satisfaction of

[1:34:28] the appropriate liquidated damages for

[1:34:29] resignations if relevant.

[1:34:33] Motion by Mike. We have a second.

[1:34:37] by John.

[1:34:39] All those in favor of that motion

[1:34:41] signify by saying I.

[1:34:43] >> I. Anyone [clears throat] opposed say

[1:34:45] nay.

[1:34:46] >> Any abstensions? Jacquine

[1:34:49] >> I will abstain from August 19th.

[1:34:52] [clears throat]

[1:34:54] All right, the motion carries with the

[1:34:56] noted abstension.

[1:34:59] Next on our agenda is items for future

[1:35:01] meeting. Just a reminder, the purpose of

[1:35:03] this agenda item is to keep a running

[1:35:06] track of any items that we're working on

[1:35:10] as a group or a board. and anything that

[1:35:15] perhaps is is coming up that we want to

[1:35:17] uh either add to a regular board meeting

[1:35:20] or put into the process of going through

[1:35:23] the committees and and reporting back.

[1:35:28] So, we do have some things on there and

[1:35:30] I think we're getting close to removing

[1:35:33] some of them. U middle school long-term

[1:35:35] placement will be tied into the CISA 10

[1:35:38] study coming up for the high school and

[1:35:40] the district that way. Uh we have talked

[1:35:43] even as recently as this evening and

[1:35:45] it's other committees that the overall

[1:35:47] state of emergency planning so we can

[1:35:50] keep our our eye on that and then

[1:35:52] determine as a board if um well we're

[1:35:55] always working on that if that has

[1:35:58] satisfied

[1:35:59] the directive of the items for future

[1:36:01] meetings.

[1:36:04] looking at this time to ask board

[1:36:05] members if there was anything else that

[1:36:07] they would like to add to this list of

[1:36:12] items for future committee or regular

[1:36:14] board meetings.

[1:36:17] >> We can remove item number two, the

[1:36:19] emergency plan

[1:36:27] specific to that. Okay.

[1:36:30] Some of the things do have other pieces

[1:36:33] that we're working on. So, we have those

[1:36:35] on there as an example.

[1:36:40] Any other board members

[1:36:44] have any additional items for future

[1:36:46] meetings or topics?

[1:36:50] Seeing any hands up, I'll just remind

[1:36:51] people that tomorrow morning, like most

[1:36:54] Thursdays at approximately 8:15 a.m.,

[1:36:56] there's a a maps time and community scan

[1:37:01] for us to be on Blue J 7:30 radio.

[1:37:04] Tomorrow, Shannon and I will be on there

[1:37:06] talking about tonight's board meeting

[1:37:08] and the start of the school year. Um,

[1:37:11] other future meetings,

[1:37:13] I'm sure Mark's looking forward to

[1:37:15] Monday, September 21st, our annual

[1:37:17] district meeting and budget hearing. Uh,

[1:37:20] that'll be in the high school auditorium

[1:37:23] starting at 5:30 p.m. Head Start Policy

[1:37:26] Council meeting is on Tuesday, September

[1:37:28] 22nd, 5:30 p.m. out at Prisal Policy

[1:37:33] Committee meets again on Wednesday,

[1:37:35] October 7th, 5:00 pm in the boardroom.

[1:37:37] Head Start Policy Council meeting. We

[1:37:41] also have on here for Tuesday, October

[1:37:44] 13th, 5:30 p.m. Other apprisal.

[1:37:49] October [clears throat] 14th,

[1:37:50] curriculum, technology, pupil service

[1:37:53] committee meets 4:30 p.m. here in the

[1:37:55] boardroom, followed by finance, human

[1:37:57] resources committee. That's Wednesday,

[1:37:59] October 14th, starting no sooner than

[1:38:01] 5:00 p.m. in the boardroom. School

[1:38:04] forest advisory meeting is Monday,

[1:38:06] October 26, 4 pm out in the NLP piv

[1:38:10] school forest. The next regularly

[1:38:12] scheduled board meeting is Wednesday,

[1:38:15] October 28th, 5:30 p.m. here in the

[1:38:19] boardroom.

[1:38:21] That's the updates on future meetings.

[1:38:23] This time, I would look for a board

[1:38:25] member to motion for adjournment.

[1:38:29] Motion by Nubs. Do we have a second?

[1:38:32] by Donna to be adjourned at 7:08

[1:38:37] p.m. All those in favor of that motion

[1:38:39] signify by saying I.

[1:38:41] >> Anyone opposed?

[1:38:44] >> Motion carries. Thank you all for your

[1:38:46] attendance and participation.

Board of Education 9/16/2026

Transcript