[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.