 Calling to order, meeting of the Montpelier-Roxbury Public Schools Board of School Directors at 7.03 p.m. Start with item number two, public comment. Perfect. Great, moving to item number three, which is the consent agenda. And we have a couple things to add to the agenda. Four items to add to the consent agenda. The first is approval of a side letter with MESA, which is the Montpelier Educational Support Staff Association. The second item is a teacher contract. The third item is a 403B plan resolution to allow Grant Geisler to execute the new plan documents. And the fourth is an approval of a resolution to have community national bank change the district name and authorize the bone steal and Shelly Quinn as signers. In addition to the ones that are already listed. Great, thank you. Motion to approve consent agenda. Steve, you shaved. newly shaven Steve moves. He was graphing. He was graphing? Yeah, I was shaving here with approval here. Yes, I move it. I will second without regard to shaving. Okay. Five. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Great, consent agenda approved. That one is yours, let me just let the guy be there. And then for item number four, we are very pleased to host Senator Tim Ash and Senator Ann Cummings to talk about the budget situation. Passed situation. And very happy to have you. Please take a seat and do you have what you need for the TV audience in terms of audio? Just want to thank everyone for allowing us to come and kind of talk to you. I know everyone's aware that there is an impasse at the state house and thought we would fill you in on what's happened and what we did today and what we're planning on doing tomorrow. We passed unanimously in the Senate tripartisan 9-11, which last year we used one time money when we were in this kind of situation last year to be able to go home and close the books and have everything work. This year we came back and there was three cents of that projected tax rate was to cover the one time money from last year. Plus what the school boards voted, which was below, significantly below what the governor said was his max and then said, well, it wasn't, we had to do more. We allowed tax rates to rise, residential tax rates to cover. We adjusted income sensitivity, so we had ongoing money to cover the ongoing expense of that residual three cents. And we let residential tax rates rise about 2.6 cents to cover what people had voted. And we left the non-residential at the statutory limit, which was an increase, the statutory fallback. That was feedout. We came back, we did age 13 and the only thing controversial in the budget is how they're using one time money. The rest of the budget's fine, including all the, well, it was in 9-11, all the, there's a major overhaul of the income tax system which will give back approximately $30 million that Vermonters will be paying us thanks to the federal tax cuts in additional income tax revenue. We didn't vote that, so we're giving that back to you. We did 9-13, all that income tax, social security, that's all in there. The budget, we took out the one time spending, we took out all the tax rates. We did set a fallback tax, a yield rate, because when we went to the yield, we neglected to set a fallback. When we were doing the tax rate, there always was a dollar 10 was the base rate and if we didn't change it, that's where we went. We said that to the governor thinking, okay, that'll keep government open, life will be good. He vetoed that. We tried for an override, house failed to override. So today, three committees, education, appropriations, and finance, which I chair and is in charge of taxes. Met, we came up with what we think is our last best offer, we hope. We are holding the residential tax rate flat. We are using $20 million of one time money to hold that flat and to reduce the non-residential a penny. That does leave us with about between a $20 and $30 million hole in 20 that we'll have to fill. But if we do what the governor asked us to do today, which is the same thing he has been asking for for weeks, it would leave over a $50 million hole and that would be an easy six cent tax increase in two years. And that really does get to the heart of what the whole fight has been about. I hate to call it a fight, but that's really what it has turned into is do we use one time money, money that's coming in because of a tobacco settlement that you may have worked on, Virginia, I don't know, but a tobacco settlement with the cigarette companies and some unexpected income, and corporate income revenue that's coming in as a result of the federal tax changes that are mostly believed to be one off payments as they transition into the new tax code. Do we use all that money for one year to fulfill the governor's pledge of no tax rate increases, even the local voters have voted for the spending that the tax rates support? Or do you do what the legislature originally did, which was took all that one time money and paid down the long-term teacher retirement obligation, which is a huge number, and we had proposed putting $35 million in for that purpose, which over time, the metric is you save about three times your down payment in interest payments over 20 years, so it was gonna save about $100 million over 20 years. It's not the flashiest thing to say that you put a payment in for the teacher's retirement obligation, but it's exactly the kind of thing that we thought working with this particular administration would be desirable because it's a smart financial decision to do when you get these dollars, and so the two iterations that Ann mentioned, the bill that originally, well, the first bill that was vetoed passed, I mean, the budget passed 29-nothing in the Senate. These were not partisan fights. The tax bill was co-written by Ann, Mark McDonald, who's viewed as a very liberal member of the Senate, and Randy Brock, who's viewed as one of the most conservative, so these were not partisan. Mostly people felt really good about good policy and smart moves that we were making. I mean, what voted for them? And so what we've done today has tried to say, okay, if we had a starting point, and we were over here saying, don't use any one-time money to prop up the system, creating a crisis next year, the governor said, no, use all the one-time money to prop it up, we've come to this point. Governor's still over here, and I'll leave it at that. I don't mean to make a partisan statement. And the heart of, when we pointed out to the administration that they had criticized using one-time money for ongoing expenses in the past, they said, well, but it's not really using one-time money because we have education proposals that are gonna save so much money that it's gonna effectively pay for this use of one-time money. That bill's never gonna come due because you all are gonna do things or have things done to you that will save lots of money. And I just wanted to quickly point out a few highlights of what was being proposed and much of what we resisted. And if you look at the bottom of page two, and admittedly, this proposal's for May 22nd, but as we said, all the variations on the theme have looked essentially identical. There's some slight changes, but it would not be fair to say that this was written yesterday. But you'll see the A through F at the bottom. I'll just focus on A through D because those are really where it interacts with you folks. You'll see letter A, the increase the student to staff ratio, and that also in staff and teachers. The 262 million that you see there was proposed, the administration projected that would save 262 million over a five-year period. So that's not an annual 262. The only way to achieve that number is to mandate the ratios. And that was the original proposal. It had a shelf life of about a day and a half. I think some, it didn't have the shelf life of nuclear waste in Vernon. It lasted about a day and a half. And yet the administration continues to say that it will save 262 million if we threw attrition. But there is no one in the education profession who has said you can achieve that money and guarantee and book it unless you mandate the numbers. And when we've met with other SUs and school boards, they've said, well, who's included in this ratio number? And actually the answer to that is not clear because there haven't been a lot of details. We do know that two groups carved out were licensed special education teachers, so not necessarily a paraeducator or something like that, but a licensed special ed teacher would not be part of this. And contracted services. This is not a big highlight of what we're talking about tonight, but I just wanna be fair, that there are some theoretical carve outs of this. The legislature's feeling is that much of the reduced expenses in school budgets this past year had to come from reduced personnel expenses. If between 50 and 80% of most school district budgets are personnel costs, if school districts instead of coming in at a projected three and a half, coming at one and a half, the money can really only come from one primary source which is less staff expense than had been anticipated. Now, is some of that happening because of Act 46? We can't say with certainty. Is some of it happening because retirements occur and as the student population occurs in certain districts they're able to not replace a teacher but not sacrifice the education. That's probably happening in some districts, but not others. The key pieces is that districts are doing this work and that the mandate with a one size fits all approach from Montpelier was not very popular, frankly with any legislators. And so booking the 262 million is a real issue. Letter B, which is the special ed bill, we did pass a special education bill two years ago of the legislature kinda surveyed the scene and came to fully believe that many districts, there was great variation in how districts were meeting special needs students, particular challenges. We commissioned two studies, one by the University of Vermont's School of Education and one from an education consulting group whose name escapes me at the moment. But they each produced reports which said some variation of this, which was we can improve the delivery of special ed services by moving more districts across the state to best practices and a byproduct of that is that we may save money doing so. An example of how they project money could be saved while improving the delivery. And this is way out of my depth except that this is what they said. In some districts, if a student has a reading difficulty, the district will take someone who is not a licensed reading teacher, someone with expertise in teaching kids with reading difficulties how to read better and do one-on-one during class time. The literature says the best practice and again I'm not saying this is what they're saying. The literature says the best practice is that you shouldn't pull them out of the class but that you should do extra time with them with reading and it should be in a small group setting with other kids facing the same challenges and that the outcomes are better. So setting aside this being outside of our level of expertise, you could see how you could be achieving both objectives, delivering a better educational product but also saving a little money at the same time. The dilemma was the administration as a way of saying that they're going to never face the music on the use of one-time money. Projected saving $86 million in the first five years. The two studies both said that there likely will be savings. They would not materialize or accrue to the system possibly beginning until year four, five or even six or seven. So that booking it in the beginning, there is no one with expertise in this area who believes that was an appropriate or likely outcome. Statewide healthcare bargaining had a fixed value of $62 million. The challenge here is that you can't say that it's bargaining and then determine what the financial outcome is going to be for both sides. It would be kind of a loser proposition for one party I think going in. So our joint fiscal office reviewed the various proposals from the administration and found that some of them could save substantial money, some of them might actually cost more money, but that if it is truly bargaining, it really can't be predetermined how much money you would book at savings. And then finally, letter D, reduce the excess spending threshold over five years. So right now the excess spending penalty kicks in at 121% of the average per pupil spending with some carve outs from that number. This proposal would drop it, I believe 10 percentage points over five years. Now how do you save 35 million? What the administration was suggesting was that every single school district in the state would beat the penalty threshold. So if the penalty threshold went to 119 next year, every district would fall below 119. The next year when it goes to 117, every district in the state would beat that and so on as it ratchets down to 111. I am in Chinden County where I represent. Bolton used to get slammed by the excess spending penalty all the time. If you've driven by Smiley School and I was wondering if it's the same Smiley that is on the front of this building with the auditorium, same spelling. But Bolton would get nailed, but they had one teacher for K through two and one for three and four. They had like a one fifth principal. They had a one eighth math. You know, they had done everything. And they wanted to actually merge and no one would take them. Because they were the small ones and before Act 46 no one would take them. And they would get hit each year. And the reason I mentioned them is to assume that every district either will willingly or can beat those, is a very optimistic or it's probably wishful thinking. Many districts can do nothing about their scale while they're merging or doing all these other things. Others will say, we'll pay the penalty and we've seen districts who say we're not gonna cut because we either don't think we should or whatever. So the 35 million's an issue. This document was prepared by our joint fiscal office. I mentioned that largely to say that legislators from all parties were asking our nonpartisan staff to analyze the various proposals and tell us that we weren't saying pick it apart and tell us it's bad. We were saying evaluate it and flag any issues, holes, things that haven't been fleshed out fully. And this represents a pretty accessible analysis of what was on the table. And we'll leave you if you can always follow up with questions if you want. And then I'll just conclude my little monologue slash rant here by saying one of two things that have really motivated the Senate and I think the legislature as a whole. School boards always say to us, Montpelier, which is usually preceded by some other word. Well, you're from Montpelier, I shouldn't say that. If you go to St. John's bring you say Montpelier, it usually has a modifier before it. But they usually say we do all this hard work and then Montpelier, preceded by the modifier, comes in and disrupts what we've done. And if they just leave us alone, we know how to run the district better. And yes, we could use some technical assistance from time to time on this or that, but don't blow up the work we've done. And the legislature, when it's been controlled by both parties, governors of both parties, have none have been pure. And I'd be the first to admit I've probably voted for things that have created some of that frustration. For the last two years, our goal has been to not do that, especially because Act 46 has been so hard in some parts of the state. There are so much difficult work going on that the last thing we feel the legislature should be doing is saying, oh yeah, you know, you're doing these impossible tasks and transitions, but we're gonna keep shaking the foundation that you're working on. It isn't the right way to do policy, it's not how businesses run, it's not how most successful public organizations run. So we've been trying to stay out of that. The second piece is we are increasingly concerned about the long-term effects of these artificial crises in funding. Each year we hear about an education funding gap. There is no education funding gap unless we don't use the funding system to pay for itself. It's only when politicians artificially manipulate the rates that you create a funding gap, because Act 60 and 68, for all its wards, produces the money necessary to pay for the school budgets that are voted on by voters. When politicians intervene, it creates holes. I'm not sure if this is the goal of the administration, some speculate, but it's not worth going there, but there are some who love nothing more than a sense of perpetual crisis in public education, because then each year it's an opportunity to propose more aggressive interventions in school budgets. And that is a real problem for us. The very people who need the most help often get all their services in these schools. And we have watched schools become not only places where direct curriculum is delivered or instructional assistance, they have become the primary human service organizations for young people in the state. So you actually have two budgets in one. You go to local voters to be an educational system and a human service system. And the human service piece is carving into a lot of the education part. And the last thing we wanna do is say, oh, by the way, because you're doing it, meeting all these challenging kids' needs, we're gonna use that as an excuse to keep carving away the money you have to meet these kids' needs. So we're very concerned about the sort of perpetuation of a sense of crisis in a system that is mostly self-inflicted by politicians. So with that, I think we both love to field any questions if you have heard things that you're wanting to know more about or things you want us to bring back to our peers to help influence the discussion. The one thing I have not heard in any of these discussions is the word quality of education. There has been no discussion. It's all tax rate, not tax bills. It's all tax rate. And the word impact on education, quality of education has never been mentioned. It's all a numbers battle. Virginia. Thank you both for coming. This has been really helpful. I was wondering if you could both speak to what's funded from the Ed fund and what is not funded from the Ed fund and whether you think that's part of the perpetual crisis that you just outlined. Yeah, this is fresh on the printers. Okay, the bill that went to the governor, the one we're sending him to the governor tomorrow makes some major changes in the Ed fund. You may have heard the house did a major overhaul of property taxes and had an income tax surcharge. And it was, by the time it got to us, we just needed more time to work on it. So, but part of what did go through is we made the education fund, once this bill passes in some form, completely separate from the general fund. We did away with the general fund transfer because at least in the house every year, that's how you subsidize the education rate. You put more money in. In return for that, and these are basically money neutral. The Ed fund will get all the sales tax money and 25% of the rooms and meals. We, in order to make that balance, the high school of Vermont, which is the corrections high school adult basic Ed, renters rebate, there may be one other, but the non-property tax related things were taken out of the fund. We're calling it purifying the Ed fund. Purifying. The one item that originally was on the table to move was flexible pathways. Ed State. We felt in the Senate that because it was often part of high school students course requirements, that it was still an appropriate education fund use, but for all the concerns in the past that we've heard about pressure on the Ed fund because all these other programs were loaded in, what we tried to do was just undo years of pressure that had mounted so that now the Ed fund will be paying for K through 12 or pre-K through 12 education activities. I don't know if that was what motivated the question, but that's what we did are doing. All right, thanks. Michelle. Thank you very much. We have been following some of what's going on and looking at the governor's proposals, the A through F there in Montpelier because we have rising enrollment and we have gone through a merger with Roxbury now. We feel like we were in compliance, if you will, with all of these goals. Not because the governor told us to do that, but because we're fortunate that Montpelier is an attractive place to live. We have increasing enrollment, so that's great, but we meet the student-to-staff ratio target. We have restructured our special services delivery over the last five years and dramatically decreased the amount that we spend on that. Our healthcare agreement meets the targets that the governor has put out, and we haven't had the excess spending threshold in a long time. So, what can we do? Well, you know, there's, interestingly so, because we've been meeting with school boards around the state trying to get feedback and better understand not only how to deal with the situation we're in, but then what's the future look like in a more positive sense? It might be harder to say what would Montpelier's school district do in part because you've just, you're not describing a horse show scenario if these were to go into effect in part because of where you're situated. However- We do feel for the other districts because, you know, five years ago, we were in a lot of pain and things have gotten a lot better since then, but we do understand the situations that they face. One of the important things that I think the legislature as a whole often fails to truly appreciate is what positive outcomes have been delivered by the school boards under normal operating procedure, right? People who see, they look at student counts, they look at staff counts, they look at the total budget of people number, and they think, oh, that's kind of like the metrics I'm supposed to look at. What they don't see is all the decisions that are embedded in that budget and the things you're having to do. So just to take an example, in the last few years, if you've had to meet the needs of a burgeoning group of K through eight students from families with opiate issues and there's been costs associated with that, but you still had to have a budget that you felt good going to the public with, that might have required consent car amounts in your budget that you didn't want to make. But people don't see that, they just see the grant total number because you guys, having served on a municipal board, I know that not every person pays ultra close attention to the gory details in the budget. So one thing would be helpful is really to show what the trade-offs that you've had to make as you've gone through this. The other, and I think this has been a Senate focus that is starting to mature now and I think as we head into this off-season, if we ever get one, we'll be talking about how to think about this is really to think about what the growing expenses on human services have meant to the school budget and find ways to catalog, if you will, the different types of expenses. A psychologist, for instance, is someone who is more prevalent today in Vermont schools than they were 20 years ago. Behavioral interventionists are way more prevalent today than they were 20 years ago. Nurses are in many schools, districts, social workers. These are all positions that historically are funded through the state's general fund, through Department of Children and Families or through insurance payments to take care of families' needs. Schools have increasingly taken that on. You've gone a long way. What's that? You've gone a long way. It's been public safety. Yeah, so you've got all these expenses that really aren't what used to be in school budgets that are now competing for the same resources that you would use to do enrichment and pay for teachers and do all the other stuff and offer more courses. And so the quantification of those expenses has been really elusive. And I don't know how familiar you are with the debate over a uniform chart of account for school expenses. This is the least exciting terminology you'll ever hear. There has been an effort or a goal of having all schools in the state be using a common chart of accounts for accounting purposes dating back eight years. We now have the first three or four districts in a pilot and the legislature has passed language in this bill that would say that we want all districts on it within the next three and a half years. This means that right now, if you want to know how many social workers there are in every school in the state, no one has that answer readily available. And then how districts code different things is gonna be different. For some schools they're gonna have it in a special ed thing and another school district they're gonna have it in some other line item. I pointed out playfully, although I was a little bit perturbed when I heard about this. I said we entered, mobilized and won World War II in both theaters faster than it takes to get a fairly small number of school districts using the same accounting system. And I thought that was a little remarkable until I was told that in fact it had been already eight years in the works. And I said, okay, throw in World War I in Korea. But that information will be really critical because just like we're trying to purify the ed funds so property taxes are paying for direct delivery of education, the next frontier is not forcing direct instructional money to compete with a cop or a social worker or a psychologist. It's not what the public believes is occurring. They believe the teachers are making more money and it's too much and that's what's pressuring everything but it's really this double function. Steve. What strikes me about this is, one of the things we work on a lot and I was just telling a Republican friend of mine this morning at breakfast was that we're really proud in this district the way we have been able to really be looking at tax stabilization as part of what we do as a board. We're not interested in roller coasters and upsetting taxpayers. We're interested in earning that trust year in, year out. I mean, we know we have a community that generally supports education as we do at the state that generally supports education and but you earn that. And you earn that by producing good education and also talking to people about why you have to raise your taxes and doing it as modestly as you possibly can. But nobody's asking us to just, I mean that's not fair. Very, very, very few people are saying you need to cut these taxes on schools. They just want to see this be a modest, reasonable, predictable, steady, kind of keep around inflation kind of thing as best you can. And we've been working on that and we've been doing it and it's good leadership and it's, we've got, our grant has been helping us think two, three years in business management. And so I guess what I'm saying is like that's what we're doing. While we are taking Act 46 and we're doing every single thing we can do, we're complying with every rule that's thrown at us. And it feels like to some extent that I would say the governor's office, the administration is doing the opposite. They're trying to blow things up, blow it up a little bit. It's sort of, and I know you're not going to sit there and say, yes, that's exactly what he's doing, but there needs to be a sense of that it's, there's a plan, you know, two that like what you all are doing is, you know, we're not going to borrow a problem. We're not going to solve a problem today by making a bigger problem next year. Because then, yeah, I'm sure you have no tax increase this year, but you can have a double tax increase next year. And all that's going to do is not earn voters trust. It's not going to earn their support of government or education. And, you know, we used to call it a strategic deficit thing, strategic. It's done to destroy trust in government ultimately. It's the, you know, and so I will say, I mean, to me it seems absolutely foolish from an education perspective to, to not pay as you go effectively. Even the governor's latest proposal today after joint fiscal got to crunch the numbers, they're $11 million short in being able to buy down the non-residential tax rate. That's $11 million that's gonna have to get cut somewhere. When I was on education, the education committee, we really looked into that social service and see if we can. But we've been on a starvation diet in the state budget for 10 years. There are no resources in the state to help you. And if we're spending all, you know, we finally got a little revenue coming in here. Maybe we could help the state colleges out so they could get their tuition more in line. And maybe we could help SR, well I know what we're calling SRS now. DCM? DCM, yeah. So that they have the staff, I mean they're struggling with all the kids in foster care that we know are gonna become a new schools. We have a lot of issues that we could be dealing with. And the focus is only on tax rate. Even if we do what the governor wants and hold those average tax rates to 127 towns, because they're average, half the towns are going to get a tax increase. And that's because it's their average. Two years from now, the grand list is projected to go up because real estate values are going. We have a three year rolling average. If we hold your tax rate flat, your tax bills going up. And over collecting through the taking of our funding system. And so one of the proposals, and this is where things start getting a little bit like, Twilight's only one of the core messages from the administration was, it always leads with we can improve education and have way more money to do way more things, which always seems like hard to achieve all those objectives at the same time. But the term was tax rate stabilization. And I think what you Steve was talking about, you were saying that people's tax bills don't go up too much. And that it's reasonable and fairly predictable. If the residential tax base education tax rate that the state sets for residential property stays the same for the next five years to Ann's point, because it's supposed to start going down as the grand list grows. If you keep the rate flat over the next five years, what it means is that you're actually bringing a lot more money into the system. What the administration proposes to spend it on itself, it's actually commendable, which is more resources for early education and higher education. But now what you're doing is people used to complain about the commingling of expenses into the K through 12 system and the competition within the Ed fund that might have started, this would be like that on steroids because early education system were like so inadequately resourced that you'd be collecting tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars on property tax payers to now pay for that or for higher education. So the predictability is really the issue. The other is legislators, and maybe it's the two year term nature of the Vermont legislature and executive branch, but like Act 46 doesn't deliver results in one year. It's a five to 10 year process where you'll start to really see what the future's gonna look like. And legislators and governors are often not patient enough to let that play out. And therefore you see the kind of constant tweaking of the system gets dried and we're trying to exercise some discipline as hard as it is for us because we're as guilty of being impatient as others, but it's not likely to lead to success across the system if you don't let this new world order for our education system mature and allow the people who are implementing it to feel like their work will not be undercut by people making one year decisions, which is what we face today. I guess started realizing in the last few years that that decline in students was permanent. I mean, you know, you got this, but suddenly it was going down. And when it first started, we did the three year rolling average, we did the, you know, Phantom students, we lit it. But it's been there so long and the projection is it is going to continue to go as predictably as anything is. And so we are now trying to readjust the system which we built baby boomers essentially. We are now, we're trying to now change it and ratchet it size wise into where it should be for today's reality. But that's not going to happen overnight. It took us a good 10, 15 years to get here and it's going to probably take us 10, 15 years to get out. And then there'll be another crisis. We've got a school calendar that was built on the fact that mothers are home and mothers aren't home. And, you know, that is, I think anyone that's got kids or grandkids knows that as a stress. But as long as we're doing this, you know, we can't have a broader discussion because it is just so tightly focused on the money. So I, you know, I think Montpelier does a great job. I, you know, I've told Barry the same thing. They're trying to, I can say, you are the least of my problems, but we have some really small schools that just don't have the resources that no matter what they do can't provide the kids with the education they're going to need to be productive citizens in, you know, in their work world. The world of work is changing. One, I know Rebecca Holcomb was fond of saying a student in the kingdom said, well, people used to make things, now robots make things, and people have to make the robots and maintain them. But that's the different world of work. Every kid should at least know what robotics and computer programming is, and an awful lot of our kids don't, so, but that's not in this discussion. Well, thank you very much for coming. This was super helpful, and I share your concerns at the time when the state needs to be having an intelligent, thoughtful discussion about, you know, the demographics that you talked about, which, fortunately, Montpelier is not experiencing. I'm very concerned that the gimmickry and the artificial crises are leading to a discussion that is not going to have the education quality outcome that the state deserves. Well, one last closing point, if you'll permit it. One of the things, you know, the state has a historical model which includes independent, recognized, independent schools, so if you go to St. John'sbury, the students go to St. John'sbury Academy, and there's no one in the legislature talking about really disrupting the basic framework that's existed, you know, St. John'sbury Academy, Linden Institute, Berber, and they've been there forever. There's relationships with the communities that are very rich and complex, but it is worth noting that these proposals all only affect the public schools, the public schools. So, as in St. John'sbury the other night, they operate a K through eight school, and then the kids go to St. John'sbury Academy. They love St. John'sbury Academy, and they found themselves saying this very difficult thing, they said, we don't want anything to be done that would hurt St. John'sbury Academy because our kids get a great high school education there, right, and they said, but in our effort to come in with a level funded budget, knowing that we had to pay whatever percent increase of retail tuition price to St. John'sbury Academy meant we had to cut the K through eight piece that they operate, so they find themselves in a different context, but the proposals here only affect the public operating schools, which means that for all the parts of the state where you tuition at least some of your kids to some school, the only thing you have control over to keep the taxes at the reasonable level would be the public schools, and that is a concern. And not the parts of the state because if you have to pay whatever the retail price is, you're really at the mercy of the other part of the system. So thank you guys very much. You can, any extra info that you wanna forward on to us, obviously we're all yours and send it through in. You know where to find me, my name, phone number's in the book. And we hope you get to go home soon. Yes. Yes. Thank you. So next we're gonna hear from the Racial Justice Alliance and the equity policy first reading. So now we have a couple of students from the Racial Justice Alliance and Principal McRae, so please stand up. Thank you for coming. How do you get introduced yourselves quickly? I'm Stella Conn, I just graduated from high school. I'm Joellen Menzo, and I just graduated as well. Congratulations. I'm Mike McGrath, I'm the high school principal. Thanks for having us tonight. Are there any questions that you wanna get started with? Otherwise I can provide a little overview if you want. Any questions? Go ahead Mike. So basically, as you know, we've been working really hard at increasing equity in our system, and thanks to the leadership of the Racial Justice Alliance and folks like these two recent graduates. It's really been on the radar of not only our community, but far beyond. And we're really proud of that work and the most visible thing being Black Lives Matter flag. I think that with their work, it's sparked a lot of reflection about equity across the board in our district. And I think one of the big questions is what next? We've taken a look at curriculum. We've done some direct instruction. We've done a lot of reflection in personal work. We've worked at the leadership level, attended some workshops. We've presented many times. We've had a lot of solicitations to join groups. And I mean, these two are in very high demand around the state. And so the question is just like, what next? And I know that the board made the decision to extend the fine of a Black Lives Matter flag through the end of this school year to match Burlington's decision, which is great, thank you. I'm also excited to report. And you probably know that school districts around the state have made this decision, including just recently South Burlington High School or South Burlington School District has made that decision. U32, our neighbors, U32, Essex, and others, and many others in the wings and have reached out to us. And it's not just the flag, but many principals have reached out to me around the state saying, with your student leadership, this has sparked reflection in our school district and can you help us with some of the work that you're doing and what to do? So I think the eyes are on us and our take, our advice, our recommendation is that we move forward as a district by adopting an equity policy that has some pretty specific expectations in it. You can read those over. Do you wanna say anything about the expectations there? I think it just dawned to the group that it seemed like we were doing all these little things here and there, but a big change isn't gonna happen unless we go to a head and you guys are the head. And so we were, we would really appreciate it if you could take a look into the policy and deeply consider what we recognize. I will say that I think that the heart and soul of the policy is on target and the specific wording probably needs work. We were editing just as recently as yesterday so the version you have isn't even the latest iteration of what we think. I was, I wouldn't really, I'm pleasantly surprised to see it in the first reading already but I think that it needs some editing and some support from you all and anyone else that might have expertise in that area. There's no model policy at the state level as far as I know. There's been a lot of work at the state level of potentially passing some new laws in this arena and we're hopeful to see one of those go through too but the actual language, we weren't working off of an existing template so it could use some work probably but we think that the general idea is on point in some of the specifics we also feel strongly about. Yep, any questions? I have a question for now. We need equity experts that you've listed. So would that be a problem in person? Would that be somebody that's here in the state department, what would you do? We were hoping that you would hire someone with time to work along with the director of curriculum to remodel our curriculum to make it interesting. So it would need to be if that extra person is not in this year's budget, right? So it would need to be somebody that we've got about the future. In the meantime, you could have someone currently on the staff, okay? See, you mentioned professional development in the instructional criteria and curriculum updates and so our new curriculum director can roll up his sleeves and work with you on that. I'd be glad to, outside of Vermont, I think this would be a pretty standard piece of policy in most other school districts of any kind of diverse nature whatsoever. So you were starting from scratch with this, you didn't have a template? No, not from scratch. I mean, there are other things out there, but we didn't just cut and paste another school district in Cincinnati or something. There was actually some pretty extensive research done on schools that have done work with equitable policies. And it's pretty sparse. There's a lot of it. We found a school in Toronto and I think there'd be a couple of schools in those. And originally from Atlanta. So I think part of what happens with really diverse school districts is that this is so embedded into how they're structured originally and it happened 50 years ago that they don't have to have this, have to have this in writing like we do here. I think we do need, and a specific identity to this issue here. I agree with that. One of the things, you say you're still editing this? Yeah, I mean, for example, there's some things that are sort of low hanging fruit on the edit. Like I said, I was pleasantly surprised to see it in the first read already. But the first line is Montpelier instead of Montpelier-Roxbury. I mean, there are things like that. We're doing it to Oliver, I'll see you soon. So I mean, there's some things that are pretty obvious. And then I think with expertise and more eyes, there are other things that should probably be considered. Okay. Are you working on this just to three of you, or do you have board involvement working on it, or how's that going? Yeah, we reached out to Bridget as well. She's been helpful. Good. Michelle. I would move that we give this to the policy committee to develop. That's what I was going with. Steve, do you have a, are you second? Or do you have questions? I'll second, but I'll second something. Okay, well, discussion, so go. Couple of thoughts. One is it's a little more granular than we normally do for policy, but we have done that and we find it sometimes. So normally out of policy, we might use like the first three paragraphs of this or something and then stop. The idea being that it has to, the policies are kind of like constitutions. They hang out for a long time, but the actual implementation of them keeps changing and keeps changing and keeps changing. But sometimes we go a little further and put a little more detail in because we don't want to lose track of the detail. We think it's so good or so important or essential to the mission that we have to keep it in there. So I think it's just a decision for a policy committee to think about how deep do you go? And if you did want to tighten it up a little bit, what might you pull out and what might you leave with that idea of mine? The other thing I was thinking though is that we are about to embark on a process of developing a school mission and some ends policies, which are really high level policies of like, where do we want this district to, what do we want to achieve as a district for all students? Those are real high level and sometimes there are things like, well, everybody's gonna meet Billy, they're gonna pass all the standardized tests or whatever, right? But I think from my perspective of what this community's values are and are developing into is that this kind of a document, we may want to make this even more front and center as part of our district's very reason to exist. Seems a little hokey maybe, but not really, right? Like the idea here is equity and justice and this concept of justice being articulated in our district, that justice is one of the reasons that this public school district exists is that we want to achieve a level of equity and justice. And so we may want to go a little further than this in the end and actually think about if we're only gonna have three or four ends policies for which we stand effectively, that this may be one of them or some piece of this may be one of them or written right into our pithy, one-liner mission statement is something about this. So I mean, I would really have a kid that we think about public schools as that social justice movement as a part of our social justice movement and that this is part of it. So I just throw it out there because maybe policy committee needs to have that as context if we are going that direction. Okay, Tia. And I will add on to what Steve has said to say even though it might be the first three paragraphs that are in the policy, generally we have procedures of what we would follow to carry out that policy. So some of this would not necessarily be lost. It would just be in another document with the three procedures of how is it carried out. It would be likely how is it carried out. Yeah, I'm just to add to that. I think that having a process to carry out these values is very important because I think it's something that the district needs to do very intentionally. And I like your suggestion too of also getting them at the high level when we have our mission. Yeah, it's not a subject to this. This still needs to be forward. Absolutely. On other things I had before, would it be worthwhile having a student from the Racial Justice Alliance sit in and those policy discussions with the policy committee? I think that would be, yeah. Absolutely. And if you would allow more of the ones to do that. As many as you would be great. Just a couple more things. First of all, thank you. Really appreciate what I feel like it's gonna be support. The vote hasn't happened yet. Welcome to move to the policy committee. I think that makes the most sense for it to move there. Part of what's written there is this question about taking down what is a really important symbol for us and beyond. And what we're proposing with this piece is that the flag remains up until the policy is in place. And so that would mean, you know, likely through the summer and into the fall. And I think that that's appropriate. Quite even motion on that. Yeah. So let's do our first motion then. Yeah. So, any further discussion on? The motion. Yeah, the motion. Put it to the policy policy committee. Trying to remember when Michelle or Steve made it. No? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Do you want to make a second motion? I'm happy to. I think if I understand what you're asking for and maybe is that the Black Lives Matter flag stay flying at not bigger high school until we have a policy enacted that addresses not just the gesture of the flag but the meaning of the flag and the reason that that flag was initially flown. So that we're actually replacing a symbol with action. Second. Discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I was going to discuss, but. Oh, so I'm going to say my draw. Fantastic. You did? Thank you. I thought you were opposed to discuss. Yes, it's too late. Sorry, Michelle, I didn't see your hand. I just want to remind us that we want to be cautious about responding to requests. Too late. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for your great work on this. This is a good piece of the policy. Thank you. Good night. So we are amazingly, exactly on schedule. So for five hundred and six, we have J. Erickson and Tom Wood who are going to give us an update on the elementary school playground and the bids that came out. I'm Tom Wood, director of facilities for the schools and then J. Erickson who's the project manager of the union elementary school playground project. And we want to just be able to update the board to keep you up to speed in terms of where we are with the process of getting that project started this summer. So we've received three qualified bids on June 15th and they were all significantly over budget. So we've been working with a low bidder to try to go through a qualified conversation with him in terms of value engineering to try to identify components that we could do in order to bring the project down to the allotted budget. And the process has been going well, the conversation is going well, but it's taking a little bit of time to get the information from all the subcontractors and all the material suppliers to get all the information to be able to offer a hard number and a hard schedule to the committee to take action on. So in conversation with the ECI engineering contractors incorporated of Willis and they were the low bidder. We had a lengthy conversation this morning and schedule is as important to us as the bottom line, the price and they've committed that they are ready and mobilized and they had, when they originally bid the project, anticipated starting construction basically on the third week of July and they're still committed to holding that schedule and allowing us a week or two to sort out the details of what the final scope and the contract value is going to be. And that dovetails pretty closely what we were anticipating with all the regulatory processes that we're still finalizing. The one critical date that we're watching is the final appeal period on the CAF, the corrective action plan for our soils which has been approved and has been worn, the appeal period for that expires on July 11th. So that was kind of the operating date that we were anticipating being able to roll equipment and start construction once we knew that the appeal period had expired on the soils corrective action plan. But in general, it's a very complicated project as we all know, there are a lot of variables in it. There's a lot of development in the design and the features that the team has created and they're trying to go through a relatively thoughtful process in terms of how to part back to keep it on the scheduled budget and not just come in with a cleaver and start taking off large pieces of it. So they're trying to be very prudent, very selective in terms of how we manage the value engineering process and making sure that we hang on to the project as we've all been anticipating it. And my expectation as I've seen, the elements that we're still waiting to get pricing on is I think it's reasonable that we're gonna get down to very close to where the budget is and then we'll be able to have a much more meaningful conversation in terms of what that contract value is and how it relates to the rest of the bond projects. I'd be happy to answer any general questions. I'm curious to know if at that time we did all figured out before how something that shows us what you did in between Ben and the crisis this time? Yeah, eventually what we're gonna need to produce is a very rigid set of contract documents with the builders. So the drawings will all be amended and documented in terms of what the actual contract represents so we can make a presentation in terms of the finished product, what we're purchasing and what we're getting for that money. And I'd be happy to go through and articulate the changes that we made so you can understand where the money was taken out of the project. Yeah, and it's a fair question. And until I have the specific information, I don't want to kind of tip the scales one way or the other in terms of what those elements are. So what specifically will you need from the board in order to make sure that the shovel's on the ground on July 9th? Because I know we have a very tight construction season and there's a lot that needs to get done before people start. Going back to the building was at August 23rd is when teachers will populate the building. So what, I see our next meeting is July 11th. So are we gonna need to meet sooner and approve this? I'm honest, I'm not sure yet. I would like to think that it would be possible. I don't want to promise the world that we'd have everything wrapped up here by the end of June and be able to warn an extra meeting. I don't know if that's necessary. ECI has been very good to talk with and good faith. They are continuing to proceed as if this project is starting on their timetable. And unless they need a written letter of intent, which they have not asked for, I think we can just proceed in good faith that they'll hold the schedule and they know the criteria that was laid out for them. So that was part of the conversation this morning about the schedule implications and the start of schools is a fixed date and they know that they need to be able to provide temporary egress and exit out of the doors that are in the project area. And they're well aware of that. They presented two or three different options for how they're planning to mitigate that if and when that day comes they didn't get as far as they anticipated. So they've got a plan A, a plan B, and a plan C already in anticipation of how to make sure that that works. Because that's a given, it has to work. There's no fall back there. The school opens when school opens and we need to be legal about that in terms of the number of egress points and the paths the kids have out of the building to the public sidewalk. Steve, do you have your hand up? Just, Jane, I'm wondering if you can help us with this too is where do we sit with the structural committee and how these decisions will be made Tommy Schuchts will leave this but where are we at in terms of, do we have the parents and volunteers who've been a part of this are they feeling like they've got a good sense of kind of as we make these value engineering decisions and cuts in some cases where, how are you able to work in this group? You want me to start? Why don't you, I mean, because you were- Sure, as you probably are aware the UPP has formed a pretty active community group of parents that were involved in the creation of the design and there's probably still four or five members there that are actively involved through this process as well. I mean, we've had two meetings where we've reviewed the information that we have today as a group and been able to have some dialogue and some feedback. This information's been shared with them via email so people have the documentation. People are waiting for numbers attached to the different scopes of work so that they can actually make some comparative choices and those conversations will probably happen at the end of this week or the beginning of next week as soon as we get the information back from the contractor with hard numbers against it. Would that be involved those two or three- They will. Whoever's involved in this? And they have been. They have been, yeah. Since we've received the bids. Including, I'll say Andrew LaRosa, he's come to the past two meetings and he's been productive in terms of understanding the scope of the man to the project and participating as well so that we're trying to make a smooth transition in terms of how that works as well as I will probably stay on until the July 11th board meeting. That's what it is. I'd love to be able to come and be part of that presentation as well. Just to kind of close that gap. I think it's important to add to and obviously if anybody has any specific questions about the progress of the project but I think it's good to know too that a lot of the ancillary work that's happening around the bid process is well underway in making excellent process so that, or progress rather so that we're hitting the ground running and getting as prepared as we need to be for the start of school. So the nest, which is the outdoor classroom and place structure that was designed and built by a Norwich professor and her students is done. It's built and it's been moved. It's in the backyard right over here and it's just waiting to be placed. I've also spent a significant amount of time with a committee of current administration, faculty and staff at Union to help visualize and plan for exactly what recess will look like throughout the next school year. The big part of that is then also my work, working with the city, including the city manager, police chief, fire chief, building inspector, director of public works to make sure we have everything in place to, and I've submitted an application to close Park Avenue during the school year next year and we've had site visit and multiple meetings on exactly what the specific impact of that will be to the local community. Everybody's on board with the plan that we've put together, all those officials that I just mentioned and now based on their feedback, I'll be updating that plan and permit application, submitting it to the city council, resubmitting it to the city council and will likely present not at their next meeting but the one after that, so, which is three weeks from tonight. So, but all of those folks are helped develop the plan and so it's very much, there's a lot of support to make sure there's some place by the time that school starts. And actually another big piece of that too is working with Tom McCarver and Public Works to resurface Park Avenue and the sidewalks on Park Avenue and the sidewalk along where the parent drop-off is on Loomis Street, on the kind of the corner of school in Loomis to make sure that it's smooth and appropriate for kids who are UES aged to be able to play on it. Is that great? Yeah. Keena. I'm assuming we're also that anything about the permits or anything we need to proceed with this. I'm assuming we have to hold up that so when we finally get there, we don't have to wait another six weeks or something for some permit to come through there. No, I mean all the stormwater, the state building permits, I mean those are all in place there and those appeal periods have expired. The one we're waiting for is just the appeal period on the cap. What about communication out to the community and parents? I know even if everything goes super well, it's gonna be a bit of a new community and disruption for both local residents and then students and parents. Yeah, and Chris Hennessy has done a handful of communications out to parents already. I've met with the new principal and we've talked about a plan for how we're gonna communicate over the summer as this plan has been sort of been finalized over these last few weeks with the city to be able to communicate what that will look like. There will be shifts to the sort of soft start of school because when kids can be dropped off and all of that, we've also been working with Dan Currier, the Regional Planning Commission who's had a transportation there around trying to reduce the overall traffic impact around drop-off time and looking at potential remote drop-off points and bringing kids in that way as well. So we'll be communicating, we're building a plan to communicate to parents over the summer. We've also had, we had a required meeting for the correct action plan that we hand-delivered letters to all the neighbors, letting them know. Then we also had another meeting for just the abiding properties for folks who are affected right outside their front door and then a little bit, half a block in each direction to talk about what Closing Park Avenue would look like. And in the end, the plan that we've established with the city around Closing Park Avenue will affect three off-street parking spots. That's all. All the homes that are on the upper end of Park Avenue will not be affected. I'm happy to talk more detail on what that will look like, but I don't know if we need to talk about it tonight. But so then I'm working now specifically with the folks who are kind of have those three spots and working on alternatives to make sure that they have on-street parking as close as possible and then off-street parking for when there's parking bands or if they want to be off-street at night, et cetera. Great. And that will, as that plan, certainly once the, I've updated the street closure permit that will go out and be worn and there'll be public comment and opportunity for feedback at the city council meeting. And ultimately it'll be up to them to decide, but like I said, we're trying to get everything, the plan as far along as possible before we go there. Yeah, and I'll say it's a pretty comprehensive plan taking a look at how trash removal works, how the mailman works, how the FedEx package comes. I mean, there's a lot of scenarios that we have to kind of run through the model to make sure that the street can still function. And it's a pretty interesting exercise to watch. Yeah, and then I will say this, I've been very appreciative of the collaborative nature of the folks in the city to help make this work. And really from the beginning, the bottom line is the number one priority is the safety of the kids. Number one. And then everything else falls into place after that. And so we've really been on the same page around making sure that that safety is key. And that also we're just very cognizant we're being the best neighbors we can be with the folks near us. So the fire trucks can be. And the fire trucks we'll be able to get in. Yes, yes, if they need to. Other questions or comments? Well, thank you very much. This is good to hear. And again, if you need board action sooner than July 11th, be in touch and we'll try to get something on a calendar. So the timing of this obviously is very important. We appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Jan Top. So now we're on to policy readings. Number seven, first reading, student self-expression. So I just sent all of you an email. Bridget had asked for me to send as reference the 16VSA 1623, which is the reference for this policy. And I apologize that it's not in a handout right in front of you. But I pulled it up in this boiler plate from the VSBA is essentially what was written. And I believe it was passed at the end of the last legislative session last year. So this protects students from having a reasonable amount of self-expression with the limitations that are listed below in terms of implementation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions or comments on the student self-expression policy? In the second paragraph, it says, no expression made by students shall be deemed to be an expression of school policy, which seems like a weird thing. That was somewhere in this legislation. I'm trying to find it. I mean, I could see saying no expression made by students is an expression of the district or is made on behalf of the district. Just that, why would anyone imagine that something a student said was creating a policy? It's just not being taken as a statement of a district. All right, well, you guys can sort that out. And on that side, the first sentence is content in school sponsored media will not be restrained solely because it involves political or controversial subject matter or is critical to school or administration. And I understand that sentence, but the position of solely and the use of solely to me is slightly ambiguous. And I would remove solely and put at the end of that sentence unless it also violates any of the conditions one through six listed above. So both, I'll just report out that both what you just referenced right there is specifically from the law, as is your first question. Your first question is answered in letter J of the law that says no expression made by students in school sponsored media should be deemed to be an expression of school policy. And the note was that it was added an effective May 23rd, 2017. And this sentence here is also at the end of a section that begins a school is prohibited from subjecting school sponsored media other than that listed in subsection E, which you just referenced, to prior restraint. It may restrain the distribution of content described in subsection E provided that the school's administration shall have the burden of proving lawful justification without undue delay. And then that last sentence that you just cited is right from the statute. Yes, I was just rewording the same thing. Well, I think yours is actually better because it's even more consistent with the law. Not, I mean, the language is more consistent with the policy actually. It's specifically referencing the thing that shall be the reason. Right, I'm not sure about that. It says in less than one through six in the state law. I'm not, I would wanna spend more time with the statute. I mean, this will be my concern, which is that there may be situations in which it's not a restraint of the school's sponsored media, but it's just not that the school's sponsored media is not for that purpose. Like say the school's sponsored media is a poetry journal and somebody says, I wanna submit these photographs that are, you know, critical of, or you know, make some political statement and then poetry is like, this is a poetry journal and we're doing poetry. I think the statute as a whole allows for some of that kind of content entry, but I wanna spend more time with it, but that might be one of the reasons why this doesn't say. I thought it. You can only allow us to restrict based on one through six. Whereas this sentence opens a wide door where you could restrict for any reason as long as it's not solely one of those reasons. That's right, it's the one. It can be one of these reasons. And another reason. I was thinking that what this sentence said is teacher can't restrict something just because it's controversial. And the implication is that that's consistent with the fact that they can only, they have to stick with these six conditions. I would suggest that you can't. A science journal. I think that's what it's suggesting. I want you as my attorney if I'm a student wanting to get a photo into it. I'm sorry, but it's a lot pretty clear about this. I don't give a drink if there's one through six. A lot through six. Would anyone object if I just tried to take a little, got it before it came back for the second read? No. Consider these solely versus, because I do agree that solely is. I don't, no disagree with that, basically. We've raised questions about terms in the past and some of these policies. Do you know why the legislature decided to use student journalists instead of just simply students in this policy? The definition here, it says means a student enrolled at a school who gathers, compiles, writes, edits, photographs, records, or prepares information for dissemination in school sponsored media. In school sponsored media. Which could be most students at any point in time. Well, school sponsored. I think in that it's like, it seems that that's pointing directly towards a product of some kind that the school is saying, hey, this is ours. Young, Alisa Braun contributed to this as one of our student journalists, therefore, labeling it as such. Nice job, turning my two children into one. Yeah, I missed on that. So, one thing is that thanks to the reading of that, I see a typo, a student journalist is a student who gathers, complies, writes, edits. Another is, I think there was actually a, It's supposed to be compiled, right? There was actually a case in Vermont, I think in Franklin County somewhere, of a student who wrote for the school newspaper and then wrote something critical of the school in the school paper and then got in trouble for it and then got unresolved. So, I think Vermont school has been down this road and that's probably why they call out student journalists. And in that same sentence, shouldn't it just say in the district since we're not a supervisory union? Yes. An above and media advisor as well. And down below at the bottom of the list of six things it says supervisory union again. That should be one of our terms of our final word search. Any other comments or questions about student freedom of expression? I would like to know how district staff is supposed to decide if it violates federal or state law. It seems like a tough statement. But anyway, I know it's in the statute. So. So the problem with the solely thing is simply that if we need, if we need parrot statute, we create nonsense. But we should still parrot the statute. We don't have to. Well. We say the same thing. We don't have to use the same thing. No, but I guess the parrot's the wrong word, but if we don't, solely doesn't, isn't consistent with the statute ultimately. It's broader than the statute. The statute is restrictive. The restrictive statute is nonsense and yet it is the statute. And so we should do it even though we may find reasons that we have to do it because it's a photograph. So I just think there's a logical problem there, but we don't have the freedom to really broad it to add number seven, which is photographs and a portrait. So solely maybe our end rub and maybe our using vagueness to avoid nonsense. I mean, this is a brand new statute and they told us to adopt the policy consistent with the statute. I would lean towards. Following the statute. You would? Yeah, but I'm happy, you know, I think we should think about it. What's the reading? Talk about it again next month. Yeah, we have to think about it next month anyway. Okay. Further discussion? Are we ready to move on? Great. Eight, second readings of title one, comparability, animal dissection, title one, parental involvement, compacts, board member conflict of interest. Brian, I'm going to go over you again. Yeah, so as I put in the memo, we are still required for both the title one, comparability and the parental compacts. Essentially the way that our lawyer boiled it down to me was, and I put that as at the bottom of title one, comparability. Essentially we must always give, at least give to one of our K-4s what we're giving to our other K-4, regardless of how that shakes out. I know exactly what you're gonna, and I- I think I've got it now, Brian. Go ahead. Let me try. And what I was confused about was the issue of password. And I was thinking of it as eight, and if you read this, I'm trying this for goodness. If you read this to say that you must equal out services, materials, everything else for local and state funds for all your schools. It must be comparable and equal in all the schools. And then the federal, see they don't speak, the federal money which is title one comes in and adds two in the case of the title one. So that's where I was getting lost in the free money. So you even out everything, and then the title one is above and beyond that, but it's federal funds, not local or state funds. So the title one ends up with extra funding from the federal pass through. From the federal, but the school district has to stay. Thank you, Jeff. And we are still both K-4s, both K-4s are still title one eligible, just at different amounts. So, and then what Cindy Kahneman told me was the title and parental involvement compacts, those samples were from previous iterations under No Child Left Behind. And therefore, at this point, since there are so many intricacies in terms of the money and the pass through, it was her recommendation to not have those models in there any further. You may have remembered title one more recently under No Child Left Behind, at least the way it manifested itself here in Montpelier, we would often get requests from Montpelier resident non-enrolled students in Montpelier public schools. When we did not meet adequate yearly progress, which no longer exists now under ASSA, if they were going to one of our private school counterparts in town would come to us and say, well, since you didn't make AYP, we're eligible for this money and we would have to set up a system to have that happen at one of our private school counterparts. That doesn't exist currently. We are going to targeting and ranking, but we don't know what that looks like yet. The plan that was accepted by the Federal Department of Education says that the state will rank in those schools that are in the bottom 5% statewide will all be in a corrective action of some kind and we suspect that that will be manifested some way in some of our title one funding. But since the specifics have not yet been laid out, it was Cindy's recommendation to strike the model compact that's there and instead stay with the language. So I hope that clarifies some of the questions that arose at the last meeting regarding title one. We're good. I'm just trying to do some of the wordsmithing. So is the first shell, could that be a must? I would read that as a duty that the school district must provide people services, so that one should be must. And then I would say that the next two are probably wills, they're descriptive. I see, are you now in? Comparability. Same one. Actually all the next three would be wills. And then I think the last two would be, those are duties of the superintendent, so that would be a must, it's describing a duty. Is that what we're getting at? Shells, tools, and musts. Yep. Other questions, comments? Animal dissection? Very none. Will you wordsmith the animal dissection? Mm-hmm, yeah. That is a very shallow one, title one, parental involvement compacts. Nope. Same. Mm-hmm, that's a good thing. And finally, D, board member complex of interests. If there is, if a board member knows of their own conflict of interest, do they just announce it as such and refuse themselves from any discussion of anything? I mean, some of it reads like, if other people perceive a conflict of interest of a board member, the board member themselves knows of it. I think avoiding conflicts covers it. Okay. It doesn't really have a mechanism of it just abstaining. Just ask whatever came to recuse, just acknowledge it and recuse it. Oh, right. I mean, I think the typical standard is that you don't participate in the discussion. That's right, yeah. Or the both of them. Or the both of them. Yeah, right. Mm-hmm. Okay, good. Thanks. And then we have... Could I just ask Clara my question before I go on to student attendance? So, save for the changes from shells to wills. Am I correct in presuming that title one, comparability, animal dissection, title one, parental involvement compacts, and board member conflict of interest would be ready to adopt at the next meeting? Yeah, we'll do it. Thank you. So, item nine, policy third reading for student attendance. So, I hope this explanation is helpful. Cindy and I went around this a number of times to try to get at the definitions. So, to step through what we're... I started with illegal pupil, which is in italics. And that's just in Vermont statutes. This board has decided that the date to be admitted to kindergarten is September 1st. Students is... Go ahead Jim. I actually had a question about that. Like, we're a new district, have we? Well, we had to for the purpose of enrollment for this year. You can choose something else as you go forward, but we had to stick with one to get people on the door for the fall. Okay, I just wanted to make sure we'd actually done that. So, students, as a broad term, can apply to pre-K students, who as you all know, can either attend at the Roxbury Village School, at Union Elementary School, in one of two half-day programs, or be a part of a partnership, in which they can come to the district and get a voucher. They're not legal pupils, in that case, because they haven't reached the age, but they are enrolled students. And so, that's how we've tried to step from one to the next to the next, and then obviously enrolled students are both legal pupils, and actually in, in this case, one of the pre-K4 buildings, or our five through 12 buildings. So I hope that's clarified some of the questions around the different uses of the words in both the statute and the policy. Bridget? I had a couple of wording things I wanted to suggest. In the second sentence, could we take out the multiple uses of school district, because it's kind of unreadable. So could it be students between the ages of six and 16, and who are residents of the district, and non-resident students who enroll in district schools, are required to attend school for the full number of days that school is held? That way we avoid saying school five times. Yeah. Okay. And then in the next sentence, could it be enrolled students who are under age six or over the age of 16? Because I think I think red is the under age six and over the age of 15, that child. Yeah, that's right. Sometimes I think, you know, you could have one. That's a narrow majority of people. Actually, can I get a question in on this point? So we make the statement here, over the age of 16 are required to attend school continually. Brian, in the memo you had stated, students over 16 are supposed to attend school if they are enrolled. So do I, so we're going from required to supposed to? No, no, no. I mean, that's the, your policy is stronger. Okay. And that's, that's okay. I just wanted to make sure that that's what. No, no, no, right, this was not right. Right, right, right. So the policy is stronger than what? I'm good with it. We just want to make sure that there wasn't. Very clear. Yes. And then, if I could go on, on the, on the Truin officer, do we do that? Yeah. Officer, not Corporal Nysen. But I mean, the board actually does that at some point. I knew we had one, I just didn't, I didn't actually recall being asked to a point. I think you do it on your behalf. So, can we say that instead? Sure. I mean, is there? The vice-chair shall serve. Yes. Yes. I don't think so. She just gets worse and worse. I mean, I'm not sure. What? We say the superintendent will appoint one or more individuals. Annually, the superintendent must appoint one or more. I mean, as long as that's legal, I would say that's a must, that's a duty of the superintendent. Ensure that the appointment was recorded with the. Clerk. Clerk. Why is it recorded with the clerk of the school? I do not know the answer to that. Okay. And then I think the shall develop should be must develop. Jim, you sounded like you had a question. Well, I did have a question. It's maybe a bit on the academic side, but what does it mean to require students who are not legally required to attend school? Does that just mean for the purposes of, I mean, if someone's enrolled as a 17 year old and they decide that they don't want to come, we really can't do much other than not giving credit for whatever they're enrolled. Right? Yeah. I mean, there are natural consequences to that. They wouldn't get a diploma. They didn't. Or, you know, I mean, in the reality of flexible pathways, that does, there is some freedom that's granted with that. So that could be still a path to graduation. Or it could be that they're no longer enrolled. Right. Correct. Yeah. And that distinction is a good one, right? Okay. So soon we have changes in the fourth reading of this. Any other, any other questions or comments on number nine? Just a little something, just and I'm not sure. Brian, you said that you're going, you have to go with September one. I don't think everything makes sense this time. Correct. Is there ever been a board of action on that? That you've established in your relationship? I don't think it's a state law. What's the... So the board action took place. Michelle, you want to help me with this? We had at least one that came just to the MPS board, I believe you were on, and the board affirmed... Well, the MPS policy, we had a policy that referred to that date, and we did consistently stick with that date, but that's MPS. You're right. So in answer to your question, there was no statement by this board in terms of September 1st. I do know that Roxbury uses the same date, and so for the purposes of just operating for next year, that's what we went with. That's good, I just wonder whether we need to... Perhaps in July, that'd be... I don't know which policy that was in, but it was in a policy. The Roxbury said it every year, it came to the board, and that they declared September 1st. Each year. I think you should declare it, or have it in a policy nonetheless, so once somebody comes to... Agreed. This one. I ask real quick, administrative rules and procedures, to add to the list for this reading, the JNK mandatory attendance and truancy, were those new procedures, or... Updated by our legal counsel when she referred it, reviewed it for us. Yes. We're gonna make some small changes to this, does that mean that we're not really on 3rd reading? I haven't noted for our 4th reading. Yeah, I have a 4th reading. We are on 3rd reading. So do we wanna put the September 1 thing in this policy, so we don't have to have another policy or something, and it's transparent for everyone? It is the attendance policy, so you get to attend if... I don't know if that's the appropriate place for it, but I don't know where else it would go. I don't remember where it was. And then we don't have to do it every year if it's in here. We just have it. I think it shouldn't be fixed all right in here, whether it's in here or not. Makes sense to me. Yeah, makes sense to me too. Okay, I'll put it in the line. Enrolled students. I'll put it somewhere in the first paragraph. Anywhere. Somewhere that makes sense in the first paragraph. Or it would be its own thing. It's own paragraph. Okay. Perfect, are we done with student attendance? So moving on to 10, which is update on Superintendent Evaluation Committee. I'd actually like to point a Superintendent Evaluation Committee as well, Michelle. That was a question I was gonna ask. What Superintendent Evaluation Committee? Ask again in the private part. We used to have one. Yeah, we asked Becky with putting together. Thank you. Yeah, so I'll give a quick update on kind of where we are and what I'd like to see tonight. And also welcome Lovivone Steele. Thank you for coming. But what I'd like to do is appoint the committee. And I think we need to, the committee will help establish the Superintendent Evaluation Process. I want the committee to work closely with Libby on setting up that process. And then also setting up some of the, I think, initial documents we need, which is a job description, an entry plan, and then setting goals for the year on the entry plan. So I'm gonna make some nominations for the committee. And so I'd like to appoint the committee and then have them have a meeting and hopefully have at least a job description and then a pathway forward on the other pieces by the July 11th meeting. And then we can kind of integrate that with the board planning process throughout the summer. So my nominations are, unless someone else wants to make them, I'd like to nominate Becky as Chair, Lisa, Bridget, and myself as kind of an alternate, or at least a semi-official member. Okay, so you mean Lisa, Bridget, and yourself? That is okay. Yeah. Ex-officio. Ex-officio. And then Tina asked if Nancy Reed could at least help with setting up some of the early documents. I think that is okay if she, but I don't think she can be an official member and she certainly can't participate in any personnel decisions. So I think- Now, she's been working on these documents that we've got so far. Just as far as the documents go, not having anything to do with the staff. Yeah, so I'm okay with her kind of continuing to help at least in the first couple of weeks, but I think beyond that having a non-board member, even though she's a member of the Montpellier Public Schools Board is a little awkward. So to the extent that she's kind of had some involvement, I would say wrap that up and very appreciative of her time, but any sort of permanent role I think is awkward. Yeah, I think given the sensitive nature of the specific committee, it doesn't make sense to have a citizen on it. Jim Kay asked just to clarify, so is this committee a long standing committee or is this a one time use sort of committee that's going to be set up initially for the superintendent shift and new district? What's the- I imagine it is a long term committee to kind of attended that to come to the board to help with the evaluation process, to help Livy set up a process where we're getting feedback, doing a 360 review, helping her set goals, annually just kind of making sure all that gets done because I think it's too big and covers some of the tasks for the whole board to do, especially the details and it's something we haven't done well in the past. No, it's very important. I just wanted to be clear on what the intention was long term. Well, I think that's a great question because I think generally with the motion to create a standup committee, you talked about the duration of the committee, admission of the committee, the membership of the committee, and I think we need to make sure we're clear on all three of those. So we know it's a standing committee, not at HAC. We know the membership that you're proposing and then the mission just to be very clear, the boundaries of this committee are what, again? Basically to set the process, set the process and procedure for superintendent evaluation and then to implement that process and coordinate with the board on kind of the high points but to meet with the superintendent. Curiously on evaluation procedure, on setting goals, et cetera. And then, you know, those would all, the big points would come up to the board, Michelle. Can one of the first, I know the entry plan is a top priority, obviously, but can one of the first or second or third things that this committee does is draft its own charge and then bring that back to the board to approve that charge? Yeah, and that's what I mean by the process. Like we're gonna work to set up what the process is and the process will define what the committee actually does. But I think we need to work closely with Libby on that and get that in place. Do we need a vote? I think we need a motion and a vote. I move to approve Jim's nominations assuming that the nominees are amenable. To serving? Yes. They're not amenable nominees. Second? Seconds. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, and we will meet, hopefully, before the 11th and get back with a charge and a job description and I'll work with you on schedule. And I know you've got some vacation and it was a lot to do a little over running. I would move to adjourn, but not to run away real fast. Yeah. Second. Second to? Second, I do. All those in favor? Aye.