 Okay, welcome. Thank you for the Caroline for your extra effort in getting here. Appreciate that. So we're calling you to order at 63. So we have seven minutes. We have seven minutes to get the work done. Thanks for coming. We recognize Matt DeGroote is here with us tonight and Christy Flynn. And I don't know. Sue Bittman. Sue Bittman is our videographer. And Allison Cornwall is on the telephone with us. So culture discussion agenda is Okay, discussion agenda is the Middlesex Town School District morning for presenting the budget to our community on Town Meeting Day. Um, is there a motion on that issue? I will move to What do I So we can talk. Um, to warn the budget on Town Meeting Day. And I think we need a problem. Allison, can you hear us? I can. Okay, okay. So, um, discussion? I'd just like to be super clear about what's Um, what we're doing. So, um, that would be great. Somebody who knows couldn't light me. Okay, so we, um, we adopted a budget right at our last meeting. And, um, but we did not warn the budget. Right. I don't think we had a discussion about whether to warn it or not. Warn it is my recall. So I thought the discussion to warn it came before we adopted it. Uh, my recollection was that Bill had said there wouldn't be a budget ready for Town Meeting Day. And that when, and it was basically not so much happened that that part wasn't during the budget discussion, but during when we were prioritizing our agenda. I kind of just remember him repeating like that's not priority because we won't be able to warn it anyway. And did you say why? My recollection is it had to do with a change in software that they, that was like put on them from the state that they were required to use and sort of learning that new infrastructure and transferring everything over plus that they are working. They've been instructed to work as though the merger is that what we call it is going through. So that means pulling all the budgets and that just takes a little more time. And they, with the combination of the two couldn't have it in front of us by Town Meeting. Okay, so like, okay, so my, my understanding is that the That's what I was afraid of. Are you only hearing when Brian's asking you if you're hearing? So when we were talking, yeah, she didn't hear Chris open the meeting. Um, it is, but let's, you know what? I think if we came close and just had a conversation. Like we'll be at the breakfast nook. Okay, is it better? Okay. So there was a motion to warn the budget for a vote by the town and town meeting. And now we're in the discussion section and we were talking about how we adopted a budget our last meeting, but did not warn it. And Caroline was, I said that I didn't think we discussed warning it actually. And Caroline was going through a, what her recall of conversation about whether a budget would be ready or not for us to warn, although we adopted a very specific budget. But do you want to finish out your thoughts, please? Yeah, just that I thought that it just wasn't possible to have the details ready for town meeting day and it might have been that they weren't ready for the town report. So I know for me, I wouldn't expect voters to vote on a number without being able to look at the specifics. We do a lot in terms of informing where that decision comes from. There's a PowerPoint presentation that people have access to. I wouldn't feel right asking people, I wouldn't be really confident for sure that it would pass or that even if it passed that people would be able to stand behind it if they couldn't see the detail. And I got the sense that central office couldn't provide the detail to the community or even to us by town meeting day. I'm not clear why we couldn't take what we, I guess because what we had isn't everything, it was the highlights. I think we have the budget though. And Christy in her packet printed out the 16 pages or so. I mean usually in the town meeting budget, it goes over like specific salaries for specific people. It gets pretty detailed. That's not from us. It really, that is a separate document that comes from central office. Right. And so that doesn't, Right. So I'm saying they won't have, they won't have that available is what, that's my understanding. Okay. Okay. One, just one piece to add is it's my understanding that we either need to warn the budget, vote on the budget on town meeting day or on town meeting day, name a specific date upon which we will do this according to statute. So I wish I had my phone, it is. So then would we have to warn that vote? If we do not in fact plan to vote on a budget on town meeting day, we have to have, identify another date. I don't know whether we need to do that tonight. We probably do. Because we would have to warn what the vote would be. Right. That is, according to statute, you know, prior to act 46, right? So, so what, because as far as I understand is that, you know, act 46 is, has set into motion a completely different process for us that doesn't mean that's one of the reasons why we aren't going to be voting on it at town meeting days because there is, there is not going to be a budget because that's not going to be, that process has to play itself out in order for there to be a final budget developed by the new board that then needs to get worn to the town and that this, so I guess that's why, so I'm not sure why we would, if we would need to set a new, you know, a new budget, a new date. Now, I guess, do you, I mean, Matthew do you? I think we should look it up. I mean, if you have inside us too. So, me? Yeah. Do you have any, I was talking about the statute that we're just, yeah, we either weren't, I can find the reference to it. I don't, I didn't look it up before I came to the meeting and I studied the, what's Worcester doing? Worcester's not warning a budget for town meeting day. So, Allison, Matt said Worcester is not warning a budget for town meeting day. And so, the process with Act 46 is that the current board still has the authority to present an operational budget. There is a hearing on February 15th that if there's an injunction issued would mean that the transitional board would not be doing anything or the, or the seated board actually, the seated board from the merged union, which I think is that that votes on April 2nd to their first organizational meeting is April 3rd would not be presenting. Do you mean February or April? No, April. Okay. February 28th I think is the date for petitions to be in April 2nd, I believe is the date for election of the merged board members. Not transition, merged board. And then I think February 20th is the transition board. And then April 3rd is their first organizational meeting. And so, if an injunction is granted, then all that stops in terms of Act 46. And we have the responsibility of presenting a budget to our community. It's my suggestion and opinion that if we present a budget to the town and it's voted upon, and there is a, well we'll know, actually we'll know by then whether or not the court's been enjoying it. If the court doesn't join, then the other processes will proceed and that budget vote will be for naught because we will not be the operational authority for the 2019-2020 school year. And so we will present our budget to our town and even if they voted yes, it wouldn't be, it would not be the budget for us. Although the way the process is working out for the Act 46 mergers that each of the towns are developing a budget and they're going to be essentially combined to present the first merged board budget. So essentially it will be part of that budget. But the force of the, if there's an affirmative vote, that is nullified by the subsequent merger. When I look at the two options, so February 15th being the wild card, which way it goes. If it went that we were merging July 1st 2019 and we had had people vote on a budget and then they have to vote on another, I worry that it would really confuse people. It would upset people who already were sort of had fears and anxieties about the merger now suddenly to feel like they voted on a budget and now that vote, you know, maybe didn't count or didn't go towards what the end budget ended up being. So I worry that if if the merger was going to happen, voting on a budget would really confuse people. If we didn't merge and we didn't vote on a budget, we just set a date and we vote on the budget later. I mean, I still have concerns that, I mean, we talked about last time about if we don't vote on town meeting day with the budget pass and people were pretty confident that it still would. So I feel like the least confusing would be to just hold off. Given that February 15th is a wild card, I see that either way it happens, there's really no harm in just not voting on a budget. I mean, I'd prefer that either way we could just vote on it, but since one way we really can't, I worry that the risk of confusing the voters far outweighs this and like, it's like on the one hand, we really confuse the voters and we have them vote on something and then have to come out and vote again. On the other hand, we can explain now that the vote for budget for this year is not happening on town meeting day but happening at a later date. That to me just feels more, it puts the control with us and it takes that February 15th date out of at least this part of the process. It still makes a big difference for a lot of other things, but something as important as the budget, I kind of just want like the less ambiguity as possible. So having on town meeting day avoids potential extra vote, because if we don't want it now and there is an injunction issued, then we have to have, we will not meet town meeting deadlines for warnings. So we're going to have to have a special vote whereas if we do want it and it's voted upon in town meeting when people are going to be assembled anyway and even if there is not an injunction, it is for, it would be a nullity. It won't become effective, but we won't have a second vote on that budget. There will be a second vote by the necessity of the murder for, well actually this will be like a third vote because you have a second vote for the board members and then you have another vote for budget that is put forth by the merge board. So I would favorite actually presenting it to for vote for town meeting because it does no harm, I don't think. I would say that, I agree with Caroline, but that's one of my biggest concerns is the confusion. So we're asking voters to vote on a contingency plan is essentially what we're asking would be asking folks to do on town meeting day unless there is an injunction placed. The only way we can have more than one vote is if we decide to have a vote on town meeting day that gets nullified. You know, we have That's all you needed to hear Allison. Chris was, oh I don't know if I can do it. I was saying that if we present the budget to the town for vote on town meeting, it avoids potentially another special meeting, a special vote for the budget in the event that the injunction goes into effect on February 15th. Did you hear that? Right. What I'm saying is that if we present the budget for vote on town meeting day and we are merged, then there's going to be another vote anyway. But if we are not merged, there's a stay, then we don't have to have another special meeting or a special vote to pass the budget because it would have already been passed. So my concern was similar to Caroline's. Can we reasonably disseminate information about the budget ahead of time for people to know what they're voting on? Yes, because we have what we got in the package today was the detail of what's in the budget, just like we had at our meeting. And I don't think we get more than that in terms of, you know, other than the salaries that are listed. And that's, you know, that's I feel like it breaks it out. I mean, salaries were just one example. I think there are others that get, it just gets really specific. I don't think it does. Do we have a town meeting report? Go ahead. Yeah. If it's of interest, I have the statutes that I think people are referring to is relevant in this. Great. Matt's reading the statutes, Alison. Great. Yeah, that's exciting. I think you're hitting on all the issues I would, I think would come up. But the first is Chapter 16, Section 562, paragraph eight, which says that these at a school district meeting, the electorate shall authorize at each annual school district meeting an amount of money from all revenue sources to be expended by the board for the support of public schools. And except for one time purchase items that the board warns as a separate article, the board shall determine how the authorized fund shall be expended. So that seems kind of a general blanket thing. So that's our current. That's what the electorate is supposed to do at an annual school district meeting. Which is town meeting. It doesn't say that. Oh, it doesn't say that. I think that it's, there is someplace else where it says a specific period of time in which it's supposed to occur. There's a place where it says it may be designated as the town meeting, but it doesn't have to be. The other statute is much longer. I wouldn't want to read all of it. This is 563, paragraph 11, Section C, and there's several paragraphs, but it says that the school district's annual or special meeting, this is what a school board has to do, shall prepare and distribute annually a proposed budget for the next school year, according to such major categories as may from time to time be prescribed by this secretary. And then that's A. And then B was repealed. I don't know what B was. C says that a school district's annual or special meeting, the electorate may vote to provide notice of availability of the school budget required by this subdivision to the electorate in lieu of distributing the budget about how the electorate gets to see the budget. And then there's several paragraphs which says any proposed budget shall show the following information in a format prescribed by the secretary. All revenues from all sources and expenses, including and separate items, any assessment for a supervisory union of which it is a member, an intuition to be paid to a career technical center, and including a report required in subdivision 242, 4D of this title. Number two is the specific amount of any deficit incurred in the most recently closed fiscal year. Number three is the anticipated homestead tax rate and the percentage of household income used to determine income sensitivity, etc. Four is the definition of education spending, the number of people and the number of equalized people in the school district and the district's education spending, pre-equalized people in the proposed budget, and in each of the prior three years. And I think that last part, I guess, is what, and believe me, my understanding of this is very, very big, but that people have been saying the agency of education is supposed to be giving those numbers, there's three-year averages or something, and that they're not really doing that. That's all the stuff that's supposed to be presented. So it seems to me in terms of that annual meeting, if we were able to move the date and not have it on town meeting day, then we could make that meeting super informative and like whether we were merging or we had that one year, say that the 15th they say we have a stay, we would want to inform people about that and what it means, and rather than having two weeks between that decision and town meeting to have an annual meeting that we could set, let's say that it's like, you know, April 20th, obviously it takes only not vacation, but like let's say it was April 20th, we would have a lot more time to have information, time for more of those to come out, because I don't, I didn't see a packet that came today. I don't remember seeing our revenues. I remember asking about... I don't think we've ever seen the revenues in the town, in the warning itself. I think the warning that was presented with the package. No, not the warning. The warning is pretty short and clear and it's just a number, but then people can refer back to their town meeting report for all the details, like the tech center and the revenues that come, you know, back from the state. So I guess I would propose let's take town meeting off of our plate because there's so much ambiguity now, set a different annual meeting. I wouldn't mind setting the date tonight of what we would want it to be. I would just want it far out enough that we would hopefully have all of that information so that we could do a real presentation for the town and maybe even separate it from town meeting. We'll get more attendance because in our informational meetings we haven't really had anybody, but if we do our own and it's about the budget and it's about the process with Act 46, we maybe will get people and we can just use it to give out information and to be really clear and then the confusion pieces is a moot point. So maybe we... So let's pick a date. Yeah, Chris is saying maybe let's pick a date for a town meeting, or annual meeting, or annual meeting for the school board, and kind of coordinate it with principal search. Oh, that's an idea, yeah. To the end of the principal search, which... Unless we end up having to repost, but then we could at least give an update on the process. So which is toward the end of March. And again, I'm so sorry. It's all right, toward the end. He wants to coordinate it with the principal search. I think we could publish something that says what we voted on, and I think we should write a piece that explains why we're not having them vote, and that we'll have our annual meeting that this year it's different than town meeting. I think we should inform people of why we would do that. The threshold? Not if we merge. Not if we merge. If we don't merge, then we're over the threshold. That is true. Potentially. Potentially. And again, we would know more on that by delaying this annual meeting. At least based on our previous... I don't think we'll know until May or June. I was thinking May 1st when you said principal search. I don't think we'll be done until... I think the time I talked about it, he was talking about late March. No way. Being finalized. Like board approved. Site and presentation, yeah. So, talking about at the February break, having first round interviews. And then two weeks later, site visits. And then after that, recommendation to the board. So we did last time. It was still snowing when we did our site visits, yeah. No, but yeah, there was a snowing. It was April. It was April break. Remember? Because the schools had different breaks from people who were candidates. But I think we're starting earlier this year. We are starting earlier this year. Yeah, so just to move back the time frame a little bit. St. Patrick's Day when we went and visited, Amy smells it. Yep, yep. Remember that St. Patrick's Day in Roxbury? So, since... So dates. Does anybody have the school calendar so we don't pick an April vacation? And there's conferences the first Friday, so not that that matters, just that's a non-school day. So, like we wouldn't want to do the Thursday before then, I would think. Where do we want to keep it with a Tuesday just in terms of the norm of the book? Yeah, but this is the annual school break. School break is the week of the 15th and the 19th. That's the month of April. Thank you. In April. In April. Oops. I just took them out on me thought. That's why they sent me out today. It's fine. I have to say I really, I think that the disadvantage of not doing it in the town report is this, you know, I don't disagree. And so I think that if we can publish what we have, I think it does need to go to the printers tomorrow morning. So we should write up a little paragraph right now that we can agree on. I think you have the town report report. And so we can add on back. There's a number in there. Okay. And also with the admission that it may be over. Yep. You know, just. Yep. But as much information as possible. Yep. And we can just add whatever the day does. Right. So since 15th, I have a 23rd of April. Sure. Or either that 23rd or the 9th. Can you read the 23rd will be the week after? Just the piece that the state that they were delayed. It was the, um, how the three year average uncomfortable care. The perfect rule. Okay. I'm not directly engaged in that. So even so, it buys us a month and a half from what we would. And like cross track or something was that. AOE was not providing some part of the data that normally is. Yep. Yeah. They weren't getting, they didn't have all the information in from some parts of the state to even put it all together. I believe was the hang up at least at our last meeting. I think that's what Bill said. I just want to be clear. I didn't come to the meeting with a strong opinion about this. I just am curious. But you came with the computer. I didn't come with the computer. Yeah, it was because I was, I do email while I'm here, but. What? I won't give you full attention to us. Well, yeah, sometimes. Oh, my God. Depends on what's going on. We appreciate it. So the furious typing isn't based on what you're hearing? No. Okay. So how do you feel about that plan, Alison, that we set a date. We include it in our board report that will get published. We'll include the date, a little description of why. There's a delay on the vote for the budget. And at the annual meeting, we plan to give an update and sort of information on the process of Act 46 and our principal search. And the time will win the time report? Yes. Yes. I think we should. That's why we're doing it. We're going to try to do it tonight. Okay. So with total emotion. With John. Okay. Then I'll move that we set the annual school meeting. For Tuesday, April 9, 2019. For the purpose of voting on a budget. Second. All in favor? All right. All right. Any opposed? All right. I think I say aye now. Okay. Okay. Any further business to discuss? No. Do we want to just quickly discuss what we want to what we want it to say? Yeah. I don't have necessarily a thought. But again, I'm just thinking it's due to Act 46, the, I don't know how to. I would put in, if we want to make it neutral and informative, it's to me it's the combination of Act 46 and the lawsuit. It's, it's the combination because part of it is the ambiguity and that way it doesn't, we're involved in the lawsuit and, and we have Act 46 going on. So if we just mentioned both, I think that makes it really clear. I'll say that we post, we, not postpone, but we're going to have school meeting on April 9 to consider the budget contingent on what happens in the lawsuit. And I would say because we'd have more data to assist with people making an informed vote. Is it worth to say something like by asking people to vote on a budget at town meeting, we could be asking them for, to vote on, for something that I'm not saying this well, that would be voided. I don't know. We wouldn't want to have that. I'll go into a little bit about saying that we could have a vote, but if, if, by then we would know whether there's an injunction. It may be a wasted vote. I'll put in something like that, just saying. Surround and do that. Okay. And we don't want to confuse. I'm always squeezy about saying we don't want to confuse you because it's kind of condescending somewhat of saying, you know. So if you say it in the positive way, we want things clear and when somebody votes, we want it very clear what we're voting on. So in terms of principal search, in generalities about committee formation, and we talked about three teachers, one special ed staff, two parent community members, one board member and it's comprising this, this committee. No parent educators. We had parents last time. I thought that was very useful. I think they'd be within the teacher. Oh, so staff. Or it was maybe a separate, maybe a separate parent. Are we following a similar process to what we did last year where the community gets to come and. Probably we didn't talk in that much detail, but probably that. Any suggestions on maybe a different process? I add on to the process in terms of. I would say what I really liked about the last process was there was one person designated from Central Office who communicated the process, kept it really clear where the board had a voice because we had a time to give input and we did the, we got to meet the principal. Was it an interview? We did an interview and so I liked having, I liked knowing who was responsible for it. I think if it's the board, it's going to get, I wouldn't want that. I would, I liked having a designated person, having the process completely laid out. Applicants like to see timelines and I think that Central Office has done several in the past five years and that would be my recommendation. So Bill suggested maybe having an outside person at least conduct the process through the first round and just doing it as a measure. Is there anyone there? An outside person? Would we have to pay for an outside person? Even if we did, he was thinking in terms of bringing the community together as a, rather than having someone from Central Office do it. And when he said that, I thought of Don Schneider, who was the interim principal for a bit, because he had any other. See if processes are his strength. I don't know. But he also knows the community somewhere. I wouldn't disagree with any of it. I would disagree with that. With a little distance, you know. And I think he, he understands far more than he told us about things. And his recommendations, you know. So I thought it's, he came to my mind. That's fine. Others, you know, certainly. I mean, I know like we need to budget. That's, to me, the question is, how much would we need to budget for that? Right? If that's $1,000, if that's 500, if that's 3,000, those are different questions for me. Okay. Well, we'd be, well, I think it was 300 a day. Oh, I wasn't thinking about that. Okay. But you were talking about an outside for the. Well, if we're hiring anybody from the outside. Well, that was 300 a day for leading a school. And I think it might have been 500 a day. And I think this process would be a lot different. Because I mean, I don't know how many full days you would need, but. But it sounded intriguing. I'm not, I'm not opposed to it. It is unfortunate that we would need to pay someone when the other schools and us have been able to use, utilize central office before. So I don't. I thought Jen did a really nice job. Oh, I do too. And then, and Bill was just proposing that or suggesting that as a first year, not the second and third year, when in terms of site visit and then visit here. I wasn't at the community night. If I don't know if there was feedback that people felt their voices weren't heard. I understand why we would think that, but I feel like it might highlight even more of this. The state of where things are right now. And I think we're trying to move away from that. I also think we're in a different place. Than we were two years ago. And that Jen is not a lightning rod. You know, I don't know if she's available. But I mean that it might be different that she is not someone who people sort of have strong feelings. Oh, oh, you know, that, you know, I think she, she did a very professional job. I would have no problem having her do it. I think if we were going to have someone else do it, they should do it through the entire process. Yeah. Can I say anything to your point here? Yeah. Yeah. If we get to pick, I would pick Jen. I thought she did a great job. I think she's a fantastic facilitator. And yeah, hasn't, hasn't been personally involved in any of decision-making changes at, at Romney. I was involved in that process the entire way through. The one thing I would do differently is that there was some level of discouragement about checking up on candidate. Right here. Hi. Can anybody hear me? Yeah, I was in its mood and I'm talking. I'm just trying to figure out, I was talking about the principal surgeon and sort of as we got toward the end, I think we were kind of reliant on the candidates' presentations of themselves. And there was not a lot of kind of checking, you know, to sort of say like, oh, you know, what, you know, people that we knew or reaching out to people that we didn't know about, well, how do you think this person is going to, you know, handle a given situation? So you mean reference checks? Not just reference checks, because Jen did some of that, but that there was, it was, we just didn't, we're not prepared for, I think, just trying to figure, you know, someone can present a certain way and they actually make different decisions when the, when the feet are on the ground and we just didn't get that second piece of information. And I would put that personally under reference checks and I do wonder, and it's, I don't know if it's, I don't know whose role it would be, but I do wonder how deep we look when we are doing reference checks. When you are searching for a principal, you should have teachers on the committee contacting teachers, specifically the UNISERV rep. You should have principals or somebody as close to the principal position contacting co-workers, colleagues, and have superintendents talking to superintendents. I prefer personally when that's done after the interviews and not up front, because then it becomes a skewsie expression, Good Old Boys Club, and good candidates get swiped out before anybody can even see them. But I think, I don't know how we do reference checks and if we only call people who are listed, then I wouldn't agree with that. I think that looking more deeply into that, I would be in full support of. And seeing what other schools, what other supervisor unions do when they're searching for a principal. But it's, you know, when I was applying, I even had a board member fly to North Carolina to shadow me for an entire day. And they sent the one who was most opposed to me because of my age, and he's the one who ended up referring me the strongest after observing. But I'm not suggesting we go that far, but some places have pretty intense, and I think when it comes to a principal and background checks, it should be sort of all in, like call anybody. So how do you think- Oh, board members calling. Board members is another one, like call. How do you think the mechanism of returning that information to the committee? I think it- Is anybody, sorry, is anybody still there? No, we've gone home. Yeah, what's the last thing you heard? We're just out of some? Go ahead. Did you hear Caroline? I've just got to our, and every once in a while, here to see what you guys are talking about. Okay. I heard principal for what we're doing is the static system. I think the voting part is done. Do you want to just get an update of this part after? I think it would be too hard to be part of the discussion. Is that okay? I am happy to watch the videos that exist or get an update later. If there's work to be done, please just partition yourself. Okay. And otherwise, I think I'm going to- I feel like this is still it. I'm just losing the static. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Bye. See you. Okay, so that for me, the last question is where I think the, it would be beneficial and the person leading the committee should get the information and it should be shared, the superintendent and whoever leads that committee, which we're hoping is Jen. That all the information would be given there. Because I wouldn't- I don't know. Some things with being a small state, I don't know that the committee has to hear all of the specifics. But I think if there were concerns from one area or another sharing which area that like, well, you know, that candidate didn't do so well with the screen board check, this basically getting a score of whose references in all the areas held out the most. That, I think, can go to a committee. I think for where we live, the committee knowing every single detail is going to make whoever's in charge not want to have a far spread reference checks. And I would rather have them checked and not brought back to the committee than not checked. Does that make sense? Yes. So you're concerned about the person being checked? Yes. So it would make somebody like- Right. So if- So somebody who's in charge of the committee knowing like, well, we're calling teachers that aren't on the list, we're calling this, like- See, I think they would only be worried if they thought negative information was coming back. Or information that would have a chance of- Because it was all glowing, why would they worry about- I agree. Other than it being shared with the committee. I agree. But I think sometimes if there's, even with some negative feedback, it doesn't have to end somebody's career. No, I agree with you. And so, yeah, I don't know. I would think there would be some type of a scoring system where the committee needs to know the overall, not the statistics. So I would also be interested, I guess, we don't have to talk about this much now, but how are we- What kind of net are we going to cast? Because I'm really concerned of us, our ability to attract someone close by that needs to do this job. I just, I feel like we need to have a much broader reach. Yeah, we should see if they're using School Spring. I'm not sure if that's- That's what we used last time. It's sort of phasing out is what I heard. There's a new interface, but I don't know if we're using it yet. The other question that comes to me is are we, I mean, we've had a pretty rough road of it for about three years here. So, does it make sense for us to advertise for an interim and just make that commitment? And I don't know. So I brought this up last time and last time I wanted a two-year principle. I think now our two-year principle paved the way for us to have a five to seven-year leader. Yeah, I mean, Don didn't say a lot, but he did say our systems were a mess and he said that people weren't ready, didn't want to change. And I think that that was, that, I do remember you saying that about two years and I think that it's, yeah, hopefully some of the path has been laid, but it's, I wouldn't say the last two years have been a mess. I think a lot of work, important work has been done, uncomfortable work has been done and have mistakes been made. Sure, I'm sure that they have, but I would hope that the next person coming in is not, is going to have more of the qualities of the more recent principle and less of the qualities of the way, working the principle for that, because even though that first principle got along with folks, that person basically allowed everyone else to run the show. And so I think we need a strong, another strong leader. I would say we should not, if we don't truly feel we have the person we want, we should go with an interim just because I think it would be worthwhile because we, and we've done that before. I worry the people who apply for interim, it would not be advertising as an interim. Okay, so if we don't get the candidate that we think we really want, Oh, offering a one year? Then, then just having, or even just going with an interim, then seeking an interim. Okay, so we're not talking about posting for an interim. No. We're saying if we go through the application, we may say given that our candidate pool wasn't as strong, you rose to the top. We really love above, but there wasn't a ton of competition, so we are comfortable offering you an interim position. Are you willing to accept it? And that gives us the ability to post and have that person apply the following year. Is that your suggestion? Or if we don't have someone that we think we wouldn't want to have a long term relationship with, just going with an interim and just saying. This is a one year position with not expectation that it's going to continue, and then do the search again. For an interim. No, for a principal. Following year, doing another one. Okay, when you change it from what it's posted as to an interim. I wouldn't change it. I would be all in with posting for a permanent position. But if we didn't get the candidate that we thought would be a good leader for us, I hope they don't go back then and watch this video. What? Which part? And I know why they're offering the interim position. No, no, wouldn't necessarily be any of the candidates offering the interim. I do agree that we... My only caution is sometimes when you get to that stage and it's interim, the rigor, the search, it... Look what happened when we needed an interim from end of February to June 30th. We got Don and he was great. We almost got someone else. What happens is, superintendents call the VPA. It is very different. We almost got someone else. And it would have been not good. There's someone else? Yeah. Okay. Just make sure I will not be on the board. So I'm saying it now. Even if it's an interim, we're talking about one year of a school leader. We still want rigor. Right. Not a placeholder. Right. Yeah. And again, like I'm thinking to Don was not... Don was just kind of making sure... Oh yeah, he wasn't a change agent. He was... He did an interim and that's what interim's do. I don't want to lose the traction we have. I hope we get a great leader. I think we are positioned well to do what needs to be done and to get things back to where they need to be. So I'm hopeful. I worry nationwide there's fewer principal applicants. Vermont there's fewer. And our area in particular being so close to Chittenden County and having the salary differences so significant. I do worry. So we need to make it very positive show and highlight why people... What is the benefit of a school of this size of a community like Middlesex? And that's what needs to get out. So tell me teachers for... Well, if we have the person just let them decide. I think we should have put into composition of the committee. But wouldn't it just be what we did last time? Or is that what you don't like? No, the composition was great. I mean you were on it? Yeah, absolutely. There were how many? But I think there were two board members. Two board members. You were on as a community... Oh right, I wasn't a board member yet. So it was you and Carolyn Rebares, right? Was there another board member? No, just two. And then you were the community member but then ended up being on the board. We're all community members. Do you need two board members? Yes. I think it helps. Do you have two board members? Yeah. Okay. And the way we did it last time, I think you were aware, was that we'd had the larger committee and then as it we went to do visits, really the visiting, the smaller group of people who were doing the visits, ended up doing a lot of the work. I think we didn't then meet eventually as a full committee, but most of those decisions were made in the visiting and smaller group. So four teachers, one parent, one special ed. Two community members and two board members. So it's ten. You have four teachers who are in the end of PARA. I think you meant... Okay. Four. Three. Three. Four total. Three and one. Okay. That's fine. What was it last time? I'm trying to remember. Why don't we just ask that it be... Do what we did last year. Last time. The only thing is, I don't know if it was first come, first serve or how it got done, but I want to make sure we have equal access. We got an email requesting, that's great and shows eager, but if there are others interested and they didn't even know it was going to be an option, let's give everybody a chance. So there have been a couple of contacts from a PARA and a community member, and what it says is that we're just going to put it out internally to school if you're interested. And I almost said self-selection, either the PARA is self-selecting, who's going to do it, same thing with the teachers. Or they interview with us. I think that would be great. We have a special meeting for each one. Individually? We're not going to be on the board at that point. We'll have to have your hair do that. If you want to see it, you have to have this first. Okay, so yes, I think that looks fine. Okay, any other concerns about, or any additions to the process that you might want to see? Any additions? No, the site visits, I think we're good. Okay. Yeah, I was going to say, should we call it a night? 20 minute meeting. Well, we spent 20 minutes trying to get Caroline on the phone. We did 20 minutes. Thank you for coming. Okay, so with no further business, we will adjourn unless anyone requests. Perfect. Okay, and there's no meeting on Thursday. No meeting Thursday. Okay, thanks.