 709, pretty packed agenda. I'm trying to get us out of here at nine, so we may move the discussion of governance and board plan work to the 16th, which I kind of hate to do, but I also know we've got the whole agenda when we started at six. So public comment. And also, I would encourage people with agenda items. I believe there is the parents of the parent requester here. You can use this time to speak to the board and also anyone interested in being on this steering committee. And we had one expression of interest. So why don't we do that now so you guys don't have to stick around to the bitter end pretty quickly on the search committee. Jim, do you want the parent request now or do you want it under parent request? I can leave it up to the parents. We should get to it relatively soon. It's on the agenda for 7.15. But if you want to use this time, either is fine. Let's do the committee person first. OK, let's do, yeah, Brett? I was just, I wanted to request or offer or submit an intention to be part of the committee. I don't really know. I know I can make all the meetings. I can make the long day. I'm actually off that day with the long interviews. So everything would sort of fit. I also have twin, two and a half year old daughters and the 13 year old that's at the middle school. So I'm very interested in the future of the system. I think that this is a crucial time. I have a sense, I have no direct knowledge, but I have a sense that the folding of Roxbury into the Montpelier school system is essentially, if I had been hired as a superintendent seven years ago, and I was moving along and things were going great, and somebody said, we're going to fold Roxbury into the school system. I would find that massive change in the already ambitious agenda that I had set of goals that I had put out. So whoever we find, I hope, will be as up. If they can make par to where we've been, that would be fantastic. And yeah, and I also was a teacher for four years of elementary school, and I have a master of education degree. And so I have quite a bit of experience that I'm no longer drawing a part in. I'd like to get those wheels turning again for myself, I guess, so I don't know if anyone else in Roxbury is wanted to be involved. I have no idea how many people have asked to be involved, but I would commit to being there and doing my best. Great. Thank you. So is this time you would expect those with the parent request to speak to you, or is that better fitting along with the agenda item itself? It's totally up to you. If you guys have, we're planning to get to it relatively early, if you have a time crunch and want to make sure I was doing the right thing at the right time. It's up to you. If you need to get back to kids or whatever, you can do it now. Otherwise, it's not too far off on the agenda. As long as I have the opportunity to address you guys at the point of the agenda item. I'm also here to address the parent request, and I'd be happy to follow at that same time. Whatever you prefer. Do we have the parent request on the agenda? You've already addressed that. So if that's about a previous one, this would probably be a good time to have that. Okay. Yeah. So now. Yeah. Okay. So my name is Andre Solini, and I'm the parent of three Roxbury resident children. And unfortunately, our family was a way out of the country when the board took up our request and made a decision to deny Ruby the opportunity to go, to get tuition out of the district and go to a different school. And here to express my frustration, disappointment about that, I think it's a really bad decision. And for me, fortunately, I have every confidence that by the fall, Ruby will be attending Sharon Academy. And I'll make it happen, however I have to do it. But I really think that I would like, the message I would like to ask you all to consider is if you had three children and you were just simply living your lives out in your town and going to work and doing your thing. And changes came from wherever they came from to disrupt your lifestyle. And that boiled down to you having to tell one of your three children that you can't go to school at the same school that your siblings go to. And I would like to hear from you. How would you address that with your children? When we gave Ruby the news, Ruby's 12 years old, and we let her know that we have every confidence that we're gonna get into Sharon Academy in the fall, but the first decision back from the board is that they were denying our request. She started crying. And that's Ruby, we're gonna take like five more minutes. Ruby, our oldest daughter, Marguerite, has been going to Sharon Academy for about four years now. So Ruby and subsequently, Cedar, have spent all of those years going back and forth with our family to Sharon Academy, participating in the activities that happen at the Sharon Academy, getting to know the families that go to Sharon Academy who come from, not just Sharon, but all around because it's a school where people tuition in from everywhere. So we've really established a community with these folks. And I'm gonna leave out the part about what a hassle the decision would be if we were to actually send Ruby to Moff Deweyre and that other bill was the other way. But just on the face of it, I would like to understand what your process was for making the decision. I was there at some of the meetings where the cutoff date was made, the decision was made, I mean, some of you were there. I didn't get the sense that there was a long and detailed conversation about how that would impact you. And I think that now with subsequent parent requests for different things to accommodate the situation that Act 46 has created here, which we voted, which I voted for, which I, like a small handful of people from Oxford followed this and really worked to try to make it happen. I just gonna agree that there should be no exceptions. I don't agree with that. And I think there's a compelling story here that this is how it plays out unfairly. If I were wealthy, I could, and don't assume I'm wealthy because I just went to Europe for three weeks. I'll be paying for that for a long time. But if I were wealthy, I could rent an apartment insurance and move our whole family down there and put my house in Rossborough and Mucket. It affects people in different socioeconomic places differently to how Act 46 is going out. And I'll leave you with that. I really don't think it's fair. I'm just gonna do everything I can to make my taxpayer money fall over to the Schrodinger Academy. And I don't know exactly what I'm gonna do, but I'm gonna try to make it happen. And I wish that I felt like the board was, I haven't received any information other than just the decision through Brian, through email, that dialogue and questions to our family, so it's not making me feel cared about. I was there, I knew that the cut-off, what you was gonna make the cut-off from a long time ago. We've been wondering how we're gonna address that. And when we started to address it, it just feels very, that's it. That's all I really have to say. Well, I think for comments, and when we went through the Act 46 merger process, we really thought hard about this, and we knew that, unfortunately, some of these decisions were gonna leave families in a tough place. But we also knew there were trade-offs and benefits to the community, and we tried to be transparent about the fact that there would be impacts, and we realized that, and we feel for you, and we feel for your situation. I'll let other board members speak too, but the reason I think the board came to the conclusion is, well, your situation is very compelling, and where, well, the board has a lot of sympathy for it, our decision was based on the fact that it's compelling, but perhaps not unique, and that once we start letting exceptions to the rule go, there's gonna be a lot of other families who also have very compelling stories, and we felt that we have to stick with the agreement that the merger committee came up with, basically for fairness, knowing that, unfortunately, it was gonna be not easy for some families and create some situations that aren't ideal. I'm going to speak strong. Well, I would just add that we discussed it in open session, and you can watch, I don't know if you have, you can watch where we discussed it. I think some of us may not be speaking less because we don't want to say anything, because we feel like it's inappropriate in this context to revisit what was already discussed and decided, and that is speaking for me. Right, well, thank you. So, action items, so we don't have a consent agenda, right? So, okay. First item, 3A is approval of the minutes from April 11th and end April 19th. Do we have a motion to approve those minutes? I'm making a motion to approve both the minutes from April 11th and April 19th. I second. Second. In favor? Aye. Any opposed? Approval of the bussing date. I move that we approve the bussing date. Second. Second. Any discussion? I'll just ask, quick Grinch. So, it's a three year contract, is that right? The two? Three year contract, the two optional years of jail on that. Okay. So, we'll have flexibility in terms of the structure of the contract, number of buses, number of vans, routes, et cetera, every year? Yes, I mean the price impacts will have to negotiate if we make changes, if yes we can make changes. Okay, so there's some flexibility then, since potentially it's going to be changed after the first year of operation. Potentially, I mean the plan right now is kind of status quo for Montpelier schools, for Roxbury, the plan right now that we have written up is a K-4 bus route, and a 512 bus route. And those will be stopping at various places within a year. So, we'll see how that plays out in year one. And the low gate is our current vendor, so there's a relationship there, so things will work that way. I do know somewhere along the line there was a discussion about whether it would be a one bus kind of thing, and did it just not work? It becomes very difficult with school start times. That's what I thought. So, if we did it, we would have to change start times in Montpelier just for a long time to get there. And the afternoon would be difficult too, because you would have to have two separate buses in the afternoon, just by the time, because we'd get here from Montpelier to this school would have been long since what outcome. And so, we kind of shifted to kind of a typical routine day transportation approach. Thank you. Further discussion? Paper? All right. All right. Yeah, post. Approval of the assignment and assumption agreement. Hey, Jeff, how come we don't do a consent agenda anymore? The board has to take action to make a consent agenda. Make it as part of their work. Where is it in the current Montpelier policy? I could try to copy it. It's a good question. I inherited it, so I'm not 100% sure, but I do know that that board, I'd have to look back at that board. I think just, I think you could just... It's not just in Robert's rules, like something that because, because I think we all, I think we agreed to follow Robert's rules when the board was constituted, right? Does anyone know if it's in there? Consent agenda, I'm not sure if it is. I don't think we'll speak to it actively right now. Yeah, we have to institute a policy, right? I don't know, it has to be a policy. I think the board could just take an action step. Say, why not have a consent agenda? At the next meeting, we could have a consent agenda. Let's do that. Let's do that. It seems to work. Does anyone want to make a motion that we institute a consent agenda? I move that we institute a consent agenda. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. So, since we don't have one for this meeting, we will have to go through these. You can do it quickly though. Approval of assignment and assumption agreement, alliteration of that one. So we had a consent agenda, we would not. I move that we approve the assignment and assumption agreement. I second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Approval of new teacher contract. I move we approve the new teacher contract. Second. Second. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Approval of facilities director contract. Very excited about our new facilities director. We are. I move that we approve our new facilities director contract. Second. Discussion? Can we ask Brian to references get checked? No, he didn't. Oh yes, absolutely. Yeah, I see they said just provided a partner request. I wasn't sure. Absolutely, and there was a reason at the time and they were provided subsequently and I made an appropriate number of calls. Okay. In favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. So now I actually appoint board members to negotiating committee for contract negotiations. Do we have a nomination movement for a nomination? If not to. Nominate Tina. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. And Peter. Actually that would be good. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you for your service. Yes. And for the record Peter agreed to this previous. Okay. So now we have adoption of policies that have been warned a number of times. We're not forgetting exactly what it is. Our alcohol and drug free workplace, drug and alcohol testing of transportation employees, prevention of employee harassment, budget execution, fiscal management, substitute teachers and volunteers, and work study students. So since this isn't a consent agenda, I'm not sure how to proceed. Can I say something about one of those policies or should I pull it? You could vote on the rest. I think you can settle it. It's just. Make the motion. Get it on the table. So we can discuss it and then just discuss it any. Okay. Can I move that we approve all these policies? All second. Discussion Tina. In the prevention of employee harassment, you have the name down of someone who is not going to be employed in the district next time. Can we just, since we're approving the policy, can we, what do we do with that? Do we put the name? Identify the position instead of the name. Yeah, the position. It's principle of the elementary school. Principle of the elementary school. Right. Identify the position. Just so you don't have to do this again is what I was thinking. Yeah, does that have to be part of the policy that we approve? I mean, it seems like the. Well, it's in the policy you're asking. It's in the policy. But I know it is, but I wonder. Right, but it would change over. It would change. I thought the policy previously just said that there has to be an employee identified in each facility who has that role. Which is how that's supposed to be. Yeah. But it doesn't have to actually do the naming. It just has to say that there shall be named. Right. Each year, each facility has to figure out who's going to do that. Well, for the purposes of this, since we're almost there, we could just put in principle of the elementary school in that space for now. And that's up to the policy people, I don't know. What's our requirement for having these things? If we warrant the exact language that we approve, as we've warned. The substance of the policy has to be warned. So you can make, I think. And it says it works with the principal. It works. And it's just that it hasn't listed. Yeah. So it should update its health policy. So I think you make a motion to amend the motion. So you approve with the following? I would like to amend the motion to change the, to leave off the name of the elementary principal and just have elementary principal in this particular policy. Does it make sense to do that to all the positions? Just so the policy? I was sort of debating it only because since it's here, it's clearly, everybody knows, but everybody knows who's in that position. So if you took out the names and just were sure that the position was still there, I think. To make it consistent, just to do that. Well, things is to make it durable too. I don't have it right here, but they do, it does have the name of the position in each one. So do you want to broaden that motion? OK, so now my amendment to my amendment is just there. It's got it in all of them. So just take out all the names and leave the positions. I was just checking to make sure the positions were all instances in which individuals are named, substitute their positions. Or just take out their positions. They're there, so we're just taking out the names. Second. State's policy, the model policy that they put out, not the SBA, and the SBA adopted a new model policy, so they say to it, I would, it came with names. And so I would only think that we might need to go back to the legal references to be clear that names are not required in the policy and that you can go with just positions. So what would happen? What's the long term of this, so that every year you change it if it needed to be changed? Well, it's not a substantive change. And so to change the name of the principal each year. Can be done clearly. It does say principal colon, address colon, telephone number colon. So I would suggest we remove this and hold it for one more time and we check to make sure that there's not, in any of the legal references, a reason why the names are listed as names. The model policy is clear about names. I wondered if it was there just because for harassment you say and say again. So you're clear who the person is. And different than other policies. So I wondered if that was the reason. But I don't know. I don't think we will notice when we go back and see that. I mean. I think that we might even clarify that before we change the difference. I don't think so. It's sort of insignificant, but it's a, you're providing information to folks very directly about who to report to. I know the title is the title, but the name is more identifiable to an actual person. So I'm going to move we table that one policy. Actually, I don't know if there's an amendment right now. Is an amendment helpful? I think that Michelle could withdraw the entire motion. Wasn't it your motion? And then we could move again. Can you do that one? Is there an amendment? Well, I think it's just like. I could withdraw my amendment. Yeah, but before I do that, is there any harm just leaving the names if we can change it? Yeah, how big a deal is it to change it? Yeah, well, obviously put Chris's replacement in when Chris is replaced. Well, actually, what we could do is approve this and then figure out what one does. If one has a policy like this, when they have to change an A. OK. You withdraw yours. You withdrawing your amendments. I will withdraw my amendment. You just don't amend that. OK. So we're back to the original motion. Which was to approve all of these policies. That's correct. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. We have more policies and another round of thanks to Brigitte, Steve, and Ryan for their persistence. Item number four, discuss parent requests. I know we have the parents here who want to speak to their requests. So that's the top. Thank you. I do have something to add to that, so we'll do that first. It works out well for me. Thanks. Hi, I'm Steve. Hello. Long time no see. So I can start talking while I'm doing this. I'm used to it from select board meetings. So my wife Melissa and I are here tonight requesting. Actually, I don't know what to request. We are requesting accommodation under 16 BSA. We'll try to get right 821 section C. I'm going to sit towards the front because I have hearing issues. I will be honest. So it's a little bit of a flooding in here. Based on geographic convenience, which is a word against the state statute, we currently reside in Roxburgh. As I've read your whole packet, I respect 52 pages of the packet. Quite impressed. Our town line is our property line. We have a Northfield mailing address like many folks in Roxburgh, but that is neither here nor there. We are requesting this because our daughter is currently attending preschool in Northfield under Act 166, which allows us to have her attend preschool education of our choice. We are asking for your help to allow her to continue her education at the Northfield schools. Geographic convenience, we'd like to demonstrate based on our location, proximity to the schools, direction of travel, which is in the summarization, the direction of travel based on our work patterns. I work in Northfield. I'm the chief of the annual service in Northfield. I have been for four years. I've been a volunteer there for 20. My work day starts at 6 AM and ends, hopefully, at 4. Many times it doesn't end at 4. Hence why I am still in my work clothes, which I tried to be out of as soon as I can at the end of the day. My wife's work schedule is 7.30 to 4.30, and both of us are heading in the direction of North. To individually transport our daughter here would be an extensive time of needing to use both pre- and post-academic day services. Assuming those services are available. And if we were to utilize the bus route, she would get on the bus currently, as I know you guys are discussing buses. At 6.58 AM, according to the current schedule, I'm amazed it's down to a minute, but have lights heating. And based on the current pattern, it would then go to the Northfield school where it picks up students off of the Northfield bus that travels East Roxbury and collects those students then comes back here to Roxbury. We would not be able to guarantee her pickup until at least 5 PM in the evening. That is a very, very long day for any student, let alone somebody who's five years old and getting her first experience at full school days, except for one preschool day a week currently. Both the use of pre- and post-school assistance and shifts in our support system, which I've also had to try to highlight there. I'm trying not to be just reading from a script, would present issues at added expense economically would impact us. If we were to adjust our workdays to do certain things to provide for her to come down here, it would impact us and our workday, our financial impact would actually be quite rare. Our current support system is amongst my 70-year-old mother which she can help. Close friends, the godparents to our children who live in Northfield and our daycare, all of which is Northfield-based or on a Northfield bus route. We would not be able to utilize some majority of that support system down here to accommodate shortening that day or cutting the cost expense of making the day down here. So for those distal reasons, as well as proximity reasons, we are requesting under what the statute allows, which is geographic convenience. I did read your packet and I read the briefs from the lawyer. I struggled a little bit at the lawyer indicating that geographic wasn't a consideration when it's explicit. It's actually a reward in the statute. But I understood a lot of the concerns raised into it and the precedent concerns of that. I hate to say it, a little disheartening sitting here with your earlier discussion just kind of. And I understand a lot of this. I've been doing public service for a lot of years, 10 years in the government, before taking over the ambulance service as my full-time job. I hope to rate upon interested ears in understanding our concerns and what we are trying to do. And as I spoke with folks before the meeting, none of what we are doing is in any way a condemnation or anything of educational systems existing in the Montpilter-Roxbury district. It is purely based on what we feel that has benefited our daughter. Purely what we feel will benefit our small family going from here into the future. That is why we're making the request. I have included in the packet a letter from her current instructor, Miss Amanda Rogers, who's the Early Education Coordinator for the Northfield School System. And not to try to pull heart strings because I love when people put faces to names. The third page is our dog. So I wanted to be able to put a face to the name Charlotte Rubber. So I do thank you for your time and would love to have a discussion or beamily answer questions. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Discussion? So I'm not terribly familiar with Bull Run, but right now we have students who live in Bull Run in this building. So I understand if different people live in different places, et cetera, et cetera, but we have students in this building right now from Bull Run. It's been for a lot of families. Those kids make that same exact trip that you're talking about not being able to make. Okay. I'm not going to pre-guess what other families are capable of doing or what their status may be. That it's not my place to assess their capabilities. Within our capabilities, this is what we need to best benefit us. What's our process for this? We discuss and then we vote at this meeting. That's what we did at the last one. Yeah, that's what we did at the last one. I think we could table a decision if we wanted further information, but it's not listed as an actual item on the agenda. Right. Yeah, it's listed as discussion. It's listed as discussion. It does some discussion. Bridget. So some questions I had were around the issues, around the tuition waivers, because it seems like that's two different. Has that been explored, the Wood Northfield way of the tuition? Is that something? This just seems like it's two very different requests if it's tuition or allow with a tuition waiver. Isn't the first step normally to ask the receiving school to waive tuition? Which would be Northfield? Northfield. Right. That is super fine. I mean, that's... That's parents. Mm-hmm. Have you asked Northfield if they would waive tuition? We have not presented a request to waive tuition to the Northfield School. Prior to the appropriate person, actually was to come to you folks first, because this is where she would otherwise enroll, which is coming up sooner than, like, imagine. I've heard getting older. But we felt the process was to come here first and then see what we would actually be requesting of them. We do know, as far as space goes, the current enrollment plan for kindergarten for the elementary school includes Charlotte as a attendee. So she is being built into the class structure as a space for her. In Roxbury. In Northfield now. How is it that she goes to preschool in Northfield now? Mm-hmm. That's 162 schools. I don't want to see that. I'm ready to follow you. Oh, you can go anywhere. Right, right, right, right, of course. It turns out that the students reside within the town and then there is space that are allowed to attend. Right. There's a lot of streams in that town. Yeah, in Montpelier, we have a lot of private preschools and so that's the kids go to private preschools or to our preschool and it didn't occur to me that they could use that when they go to other public preschools. That's all it's going to be. Northfield Kindergarten Program we were building in as students who is not residing there. Like, we typically have Northfield students in our preschool program as well, but they're not expected in the head camp for the following year because they would be attending their resident district. So I'm not really sure why the Northfield Kindergarten Program will be doing that. Does anyone know what, whether we have to make a decision before they can go to Northfield because... If they made an arrangement with Northfield then Northfield didn't charge them tuition. They could go there. I think what I would suggest that this board consider is if they approach the Northfield or Payne Mountain School District and their request is denied, that's in paragraph three. This family could come back to this board and request that Montpelier, Rocksbury pay back tuition to attend that Northfield school. And so I think that could potentially be something that this board at least discusses, correct, it's not listed as an action item, but that's something to consider. So you're saying that's a sequence to follow? So they would go, right. It would be a sequence to follow, right. But he's saying we could discuss now whether... If we got there, what this board's inclination would be, potentially. Unfortunately, U of O current policy in place to dictate the process in the state doesn't actually define that process. So it's not that that is the process to follow. It's that that is an interpretation of a process to follow that has not been officially defined. That's true, but there are still moving parts in here that may be considered before answering the question in full, in tuition being one of them, and where it is we plan our students to go in terms of internal funding too. So we don't have those answers yet. In the absence, I mean, we don't have that answer. I understand you've gotten different advice, but I would certainly recommend for this board at least to, this is the process that our council has recommended. We at least consider. And since there is, as she points out, there's nothing in the Articles of Agreement that specifically addresses that. This is the best attempt to try to navigate a tricky subject within the interpretation of the law that this board has used to this point. But process-wise, wouldn't it not be the parent's responsibility to contact Northfield and find out if they could bring their child there without paying tuition? From, yes. It's not the board to be responsible. So I think that seems to me the process. It seems like it's a hard night for telling people it's not working. We, the merger committee, had a lot of discussion and knew that a lot of families would be affected in one way or another because of this merger. But regardless of the merger, though, even if the Roxbury School District was existing, the movement from the Roxbury where I say the request, regardless of the merger, it has nothing to do with, right. Except you're now coming to a different board. Yes, it was a, but maybe some couple of similar faces, but not all the same things. Okay, I see. No, that makes sense. And if I could ask a question, is it your hope that the Montpelier Roxbury School District would allow this? Sure, sorry, and I speak softly. Is it your hope that the Montpelier Roxbury School District would approve this for your child's complete education term or only for kindergarten or only for elementary school? It is our hope that, I'm gonna go to the line, that I intend to come back here each year to ask for the same thing, but it would be for her to continue her education at the Northfield School. Throughout K-12 years. K-12. Yes. Both children. Both children. I forgot the two issues. Yes, however, what I would expect, if I can add in, because of reading the packet, I would expect that probably by the point that our 14-month-old reaches an age where this would be a discussion, that there might be a process in place like was suggested by the attorney for a one-to-one swap system or something like that, which has existed in the Montpelier system for years with U-32 in other places. And I would expect that then there would be an appropriate process to apply through at that point for him. We have that with Northfield. Does this name just for high school? But I was gonna say, but it doesn't start until high school. High school. Correct, it exists in that level. It was suggested in the packet that something like that could be initiated with the neighboring district. And then I would expect, like, as you brought up with our son, that obviously a lot can happen in four years, but that there would be a more defined process to do versus digging in the titles to find the process. Can we do a swap on an ad hoc basis? In other words, without a policy, if a swap were proposed at the elementary school level, that'd be something the board could just take an action on. You know, I mean, I don't know what kind of demand there would be. If somebody from Northfield wanted to come in. We've never done it at any other level, but the high school doesn't mean we couldn't, but. Well, there's a concern about it all, right? But there's, I think, Steve, there's a concern about continuity. There's a concern about child's educational continuity. So, you know, a swap works for kindergarten, but then it doesn't work the next year. I see. So, once one direction starts to wane, you strand people, right? Potentially. Yeah, yeah. It's tricky. It's the same though as Andre was in, where you might have one older sibling was able to get the transfer that they wanted, but the younger sibling wouldn't be able to do so, and then you're gonna get stuck in a sticky situation again. Well, then you get the other situation too, where you keep approving the exceptions that you're, the district's paying out. A lot of money. A lot of tuition, yeah. A lot of money. We're talking 13 years times. 16,000. 16,000. Well, 15,000 is adjusted for inflation. Yeah. Our K6, our K6 is 12, our 7, 12 is 16. I'm sure other districts are somewhere in the ballpark. So, we're talking quarter million dollars. For one child. For one child, the first child. So, it's not a decision that can be made widely. And this was the opportunity we were given to bring it to you. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, we just get stuck in these. Having to think about the, beyond you is the problem. We have to be thinking about the whole system. So, with compassion for every family too. One thing I would comment on reading the lawyer's opinions is that, as a new board, because you are a new entity in truth, everything you do sets a precedent. And I was not, and if the lawyer's president wants to yell at me afterwards, it's okay. Not in favor of recommendation that tells people to caution on making precedent. Because everything you do, whether you're establishing the policies you just voted in, or the ones you're talking about later tonight, or changing buses to include a new busing system for account, you're setting in building new. So everything is building new. And that, whether it's our decision or other decisions, the board as an entity should not be afraid to step forward and do those things. Because that's what you are tasked with doing as the first board after the murder. That's maybe unfortunate role some parts, and also the beneficial roles, because you can craft changes that you thought for years could be in the system. Yeah, and also, I mean, what I think precedent is swaying heavily on the board, because I think we agree to a structure and we want that structure to work. And if some of the first messages that get out is that structure's very open and malleable, we're gonna get frankly a lot of requests, and not just are we gonna get a lot of requests, we're not gonna get to the point where people are bought into the system and the system is working. Yeah, and we're gonna keep creating these types of situations. And not just a decision to be considered a child, we will turn around and we will go to the Pay Mountain board and we will make the request there. But I want to, my government job was very built into rules. I finished that career as an ocean enforcement officer for a number of years. So statutes and rules are kind of where my brain lives a lot of times. But we'll follow them out. And obviously if either board renders a decision that we don't agree with, we have 30 days to appeal to the Secretary of Education based on the statute. And they will rule solely on the statute, not on concerns of precedent. Yep, so. Absolutely. When I'm in position like it, there's a time is of the essence. And so what I think we can do is help by not, by moving as quickly as we possibly can and being clear about the timeline ahead so that we're not costing days. So I'm wondering if we can give an expectation about what decision we'll make and when we'll make, or what kind of a decision we'll make and when we'll make it so that they can keep moving and do what they need to do also. If this is only a discussion at this point, or do we take an action now saying that we will follow, that we're taking the recommendation of counsel and that we will not take an action at this point or we just don't take an action and that pushes them off. I mean, I'm just trying to figure out how we give a direction, be clear so that there's a path that everybody agrees to. Well, I would move that if Payne Mountain waives the tuition, we would accept the request. And that eliminates the step of them having to come back to us. If they accept the tuition, or if they waive the tuition. If they waive the tuition. I don't understand why that's even a decision. Does that matter to them? We don't have to make that decision. They don't show up? Well, if Payne accepts a request, can they just go and waive us goodbye whether we want them to leave them? Absolutely, we don't have to approve it. They can just go. They just go. And then I would go try to accept it to Mr. Graver. But we might be able to give them the answer to the question of, well, what does this board think? So that way they don't go to Payne and say, well, why don't you go back to Bob Pilar Roxbury board and get a decision from them? So my sense is that we should deny paying tuition. And the reason is because as you said, everything we do is a precedent, but that means everything we do has the effect of policy at this point. And we have, I think that we would need to make this policy decision kind of dispassionately outside of the needs of a single family. And that's not to say that your needs aren't important. I have a couple of young kids in elementary school too. And, but I think that because these decisions now have the effect of enforceable policy in the future, I think we have to be very careful about anything other than an explicit policy statement of some sort. So if we don't make exceptions, we make decisions. And how do we want to treat this today? How do we want to treat it in the future? And I think that would have to be the context we'd have to make this decision in. And that usually requires some rational, rationed time involved to have that conversation. Did it make it a motion or? I don't know, is that a motion? Is that how we do it? Yeah, I think you would need to make a motion. Okay, so I would move that, see in the same breath as I say, I need more conversation is I closing the door on this at this point is less essential to me than not leaving them for false hope. So it's kind of like, I almost feel like I'm more comfortable with a kind of a test in the weather and that we say, you know, I just, I personally could see in a, in our next meeting possibly or probably denying, but at this meeting I'm not prepared to say no. And my question is I'm going back to your original statement to be fair to the family. Why wouldn't you make a decision now if we agree on the decision? The family can go and ask for a waiver of tuition and they could bring their child to Northfield if Northfield waives the tuition. But the question is, why would we ask them to come back if in effect we would vote to deny this? So I'm not going to make the motion. In motion to the floors, I will make a motion to deny the request put forward by the rudder family. I'll second that motion. Further discussion? I'm going to abstain because I'm going to disclose that Latine and I were colleagues for 10 years and I'm just going to stand. I'd suggest that maybe the first part of this is that we suggest they go back or we require that they go back first and seek the waiver. And try to achieve it that way. It's not to say that. They can still do that even if we've denied. Oh yeah, that would be the thing if we deny. And then there's also the process if we do deny of appealing to the Secretary of Education. Well, that's the other thing is do we hold that up? Because my question is, I feel for the situation, but I also have a sense that the decision is probably pretty clear. And from a process standpoint, I think action here might actually make it. Oh, it's faster. Make it easier for them to tell their story to Payne and then they can more quickly go to the AOE too because they'll have to come back for another meeting and depending on what Payne means, that could be weeks. Like I said, is there anybody who thinks we should not deny it then? Can I ask a question of Brian? You had said a few meetings back that you think there's a lot of conversation in the community about exceptions. I just feel like if the only exceptions we ever get asked for are holders and rudders. There's another one coming on this. There's another one coming for sure. In our anticipation, I'm expecting the seventh graders who went to North Hill Middle School right now, I'm expecting that we're gonna get letters from them. I could be wrong there, but my guess is we're probably gonna get letters from those students asking to stay where they were. And I have to say, in fairness, we've just told another family no. I can't think of why. They had a compelling argument. Yeah, they had a very compelling thing about the fact is he did not have a statutory way to appeal to this position. You guys only think he was made with argue events was the definition of when people could go where. There wasn't a statutory argument to say that there could be a exception. Well, I think it'll be interesting if you do decide to go to the department of Ed because they'll be in the same position we are. There will be lots of people and lots of merged districts in the same place you are and they'll have to make a decision. Which I unfortunately think around the state you're gonna see a bit of that. But I would, Tasha against, I'm sorry Brian, but I don't feel that the mass exodus of Roxbury people is going to be there with the voting results that you guys had with the merger in town. If you had more waiver, I'm just saying you brought up that concern. If you had had more wavering and challenge and appeal and had to fight to get the merger accepted then I would see that thing. But I don't see that because I don't see that others have adopted as many problems as others may have found. I would also, I'm getting the gist of what the group's consensus is going to be whether there's a vote tonight or whether there's a vote in another meeting. I would also caution a governing body on becoming known as the group that doesn't make any exceptions or doesn't listen. You know, you're listening and I appreciate it, but doesn't feel like the, doesn't portray to the people making requests that any request will actually be considered if it is just a denial, a denial, a denial, a denial. Because then that is your precedent. That nothing is ever gonna go through the board until the board is different. And that's a bad precedent to establish as much as an exception to the rule of conduct. Richard? I wanna, first of all, thank you for the request which is very well thought out and for your presentation tonight which is allowed for a very thoughtful discussion of the issues that I'm trying to speak of. And to try to give you some of my thinking because I think you're entitled to our thinking as we go through this. I am less sort of coming from our Steve was about making, being concerned about making policy or exceptions. I'm looking at the request and these requests that would require our district to pay tuition for one student to another district. I find extraordinarily difficult to say yes to because it takes resources out of the entire district and it raises these very difficult questions of fairness because it's a very large commitment of public funds to follow one student that we can't possibly do for very many students at all. And it's very hard to figure out where that line is. So I look at the statute about geographic convenience and the distances, I'm sure that there are places in Vermont where people could be so far from the other elementary school that they'd have a relief that that's what this was intended for. I don't see this distance level as being what the statute was getting at. And if it goes to the secretary and the secretary says otherwise we'll have guidance that we can then apply in the future that would help us from the state to know, okay, well, this is where in this new world of merged districts and fewer elementary schools, this is where the state is kind of drawing some lines. But I just can't look at that distance and say I think that's where we're supposed to take tuition dollars and pay them out of our district. I very much feel for your situation. I would also not be used for teaching her and at the facility she would no longer be at. Excuse me? As a person who grew up and left public school because I got very tired of, I grew up in a farming community. I went to a small school that was eight through eight and then we all headed off to the union school. And you wanna talk about 12 not necessary fit in group of kids heading to a union school that was not all farming kids. The guidance office there didn't even pay attention to me going in each day and checking out private school manuals about different private school options in the state and outside the state. It didn't even raise a red flag to them. And that was disappointing to me. But there, I'm trying to say there are, there's a lot and the statue, I will admit that the statue is very big. The word convenience doesn't define distance. It doesn't define what the hardship of the convenience factor is. It could have, yes, been written for somebody in the Northeast Kingdom that is in a district but to get there it takes 20 miles to get there. Or it could be written for somebody like us who would financially and educationally benefit from the mode of traffic and the ability of where our commute is. If we were living, that argument wouldn't hold water if I was living five miles down the road towards Braintree right now. Because I'd be coming by this school. My wife would be coming by this school. I feel it does hold water, but I respect your opinion that you don't. And that's part of the interpretation of statutes and guidance documents. Steve, would it be any more convenient for you if your daughter was able to go to Union and Montpelier Union Elementary in Montpelier? We have to consider that because obviously my work is Montpelier. The concern we had is that my day sometimes ended at 4.30, but it doesn't always. So we have to still rely on the same support system which is within Northfield as well as her after school care which is in Northfield. We have to consider that because of the dean down there but the timeline for the work day just doesn't line up with the school day in Montpelier. We do have a really, really good after school program in Union called Community Connections which my own daughters have been in for years where they are able to stay there until we get off work at five or anytime before that by 15, by 30 if you really wish it. And it's a solid program that doesn't seem to be going anywhere and it's income sensitized and it works for a lot of us who don't get off until five. So I just ask you to at least consider it because we do actually have a policy on. We're discussing it tonight. Yeah, right, so but we're actually in the middle of deliberating thankfully because that's something that again going back to my concern I wanted to be able to think why we're doing something, have a good conversation but not treat things as exceptions. So I'd ask you to at least consider it in this conversation and Union's also an excellent elementary school. Yeah, and I really want to stress that a lot of the way I know this is the final on my natural locations and again the snowball effect because you mentioned you have even a younger child that my guess is when that you're going to want the younger child going to the same school and having two kids going in two different directions is going to probably create even harder convenient circumstances. So then we get. That was the last families. Yes, unfortunately, her attending down here and him going to be our daycare will be in two completely opposite directions. So that we're going to still have that in the situation where she attends Roxburgh. I approve that. School transfer, elementary school transfer tonight because it's really. So we should probably take an action. Take an action. It's on the table anyway. It is on the table. Can we repeat the action? I've lost. We made the motion. I second it. I second it. She has said it. I did. To deny Michelle said she's going to abstain. We haven't been going to vote yet. All right. Do we want to take a vote? Yep. All those that are in favor. Deny. Deny. We figured out from Ryan that we can deny their advice. I'll put any opposed. Abstentions. Regardless, thank you guys for your time tonight. I think you've appreciated. Thank you for coming. We wish you all and the rest of the policy development and I believe Monday night or something like that. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. So we will head there. And then obviously the 30 day clock is going because of actually rendering a decision here. So yeah. Thank you guys for your time tonight. Yeah, thank you for coming. Thank you. All right. We have item five, the first policy readings of five new policies. And I actually was not wrong for any of the previous policy readings. I think it's something special we're supposed to do. No, I think in the interest of time since it's approaching 8th of June, I would ask the board, is there any specific questions about any of these? Lori and I, again, looked at the model policies from the VSBA, reviewed them against what each district currently had made adjustments as appropriate, presented them to the folks on the policy committee. I think we're finally getting into a good rhythm. Bridget is not having to remind me as much to send them on. And so these are already well done in our opinion. They're what both districts are currently following. And so I would obviously entertain any questions that anyone had, but I do believe this is currently how our systems are operating with these policies as they are. I did have a question under the firearms policy versus does Reds or Reds Black with all of us right now? Under the fourth paragraph, we've got the exceptions that would be made. These exceptions cover a lot of contingencies and they're very loosely written, I have to say. Is there some way that we can earn that up? We certainly can. Because this would, anybody would be excused if they're bringing it back into school under this. So I can't tell you I have in the seven years that I've been here presented an expulsion case to a board in which one of these contingencies was truly met. That said, Becky's point is a valid one. And if this board would like, we could look at some stronger language or more clarity for those certainly given the current climate around weapons. I think this just gives the board the latitude to use the judgment if the circumstances are weird. Well, you know, weird is fine. But number two and number four are particularly troublesome looking at this. Because it requires a subjective opinion which could be easily fought by the student and by the student's parents. And we would not have anything with which to stand upon to say we override your opinion. Actually what, so what I can speak to about that is these have both the times I've had to use these. These are the reasons the administration has brought forward to say, I'll pick on Michelle. Michelle brought a knife to school. It was discovered we as the administration while we recognize must go through an expulsion hearing with you as the board would invoke number two that she did not intend to use the firearm to threaten or endanger others. It can, and it can be used by the parents but in an expulsion hearing the administration would be present and would also be able to present evidence. So the board would have to weigh evidence presented by the leadership, the administrator who discovered as well as the parents. I totally, I, well, I was going to say I wondered in this policy, this policy does not discuss, and is there another one coming, knives or ammunition. And I as principal have been in a situation in which ammunition was brought to school and the case can be I was hunting. It was in my backpack. I didn't realize it was there and I came to school and part of the discussion at that time was even if, as far as safety goes, even if the student themselves did not intend to use the weapon or the ammunition, it was now available to anyone else in the room who would use it. And that brings out a threat that, that the board would need to think about, I think at that time. Regent. So I, I guess my concern is that the, or the reason I think the exceptions may really matter is that the penalty is so high. I mean, so the penalty is expulsion for a full year. So having some room to not apply that penalty does seem important. But doesn't at the time the board get the right to decide whether it's a full penalty or partial penalty? Not the way I was going to say. Okay, so maybe that's the problem. So, so I think it's important that they realize I mean, I think it's brought to you, but I also think, you know, these are not exceptions to the rule. These are factories, modified factories in an expulsion period, which I think is different. So we're not, you know, no one is saying you can bring us gun to school if you don't intend to threaten their harmony with it. But if a gun is brought to school and we're deciding whether we're gonna expel someone for a full year, we can, we can look to these factors and decide if whether that expulsion is fair or should be modified in some way. I also have a follow-up question. Do we have something similar in hand addressing other weapons, knives, crossbows? I just started to look for that in our... That's why I was gonna say knives or ammunition. Student behavior. Student behavior. I'm looking right now. It looks like it does allow for, during the expulsion hearing to, for the board to modify the expulsion. That's the second sentence. Where are we? Under sanctions. That's where these are coming from. Well, you know, the student may not have intended to harm anybody, but he intended to bring it to somebody else who will harm somebody. I mean, the way that it's written, it's written with an awful lot of wiggle around in it. It does say, however, the school board may modify the expulsion on a case-by-case basis when it finds circumstances. Such a ask. I mean, right. So in that case, you can say, you're suspended for a court or expelled for a court or not for the whole year, right? Or, yeah, yeah, or not expelled, but something else, I don't know. Let's affect the rifle and the rack and the pickup. Yeah. Same on-school property. I'll tell you, I almost had to call school two days ago because I got groceries on Monday, but I was too tired to unload the whole car. So there was a 12-pack of beer in the trunk of the car. And the next morning, my daughter drove that car to the school. And at some point in the day, I realized that my daughter's car had a 12-pack of beer in the trunk. These things happen. And I'm not willing to go there. It's different. It's so much different. Because you're not gonna leave your gun in your car like that. It shouldn't be anyway. It needs to be with your children around. That's right, it should be in a safe. And you shouldn't. I guess my same theory is about a backpack. You could leave a gun in a backpack that you usually would be using for a fan car. It can be legal, but it doesn't mean it's for one. Right. Would you say that it has to be? Yeah, I mean, no, I had no idea. Yeah, I wouldn't say you took care of it. It's not okay. I guess it's just right. Okay. So we're having a cacophony going on. So... Sorry, sorry, cacophony. Maybe a question on a different theme. The reporting to DCF, Brian, it says superintendent may report incidents. Would this normally be reported? It seems like it should be. I'm trying to think of... Is that done to have to legally report? I recently had an high school student who was out deer hunting in the fall. And for that it was under a bunch of coats and whatever in the backseat, but enough is exposed that someone saw it through the window. And so, we would call DCF, I would think, no. I don't think we... Didn't intend to bring it, but the sanctions are, any student who brings the firearm to school or who possesses a firearm in school shall be brought by the superintendent to the school board for the expulsion hearing. So regardless of the reasons they bring it, or it's been found in school property, they have to come for a hearing. And then you have those options to modify the consequence for having done so. And that's what those exceptions are. It doesn't get permission for you to bring it. It's okay. You still have to go through the process. I'm fairly certain that for the expulsion hearing that I was referring to, we did not make a report to DCF because it was in the same vein as Lori's situation. When a young child or the elementary school should have something, that's a call to DCF. Absolutely. To have access to something that they could find themselves using an accidentally. And should have access to it. So there's... I'm not sure what the State Department does with it, but every year they ask you how many guns in school and how many this and how many this. And I think that could be on the gun. No, and that's a fair idea. It requires it collected. It really is to the intent. If a student brought a weapon to school and we discovered it and there was intent to harm, that's absolutely gonna be a call. Are there specific... I'll sort of try to circle around to you. Are there specific questions that folks would like Brian and Lori to come back with information on this policy next time? Would that be a helpful way to... Absolutely. Because we're not acting on this policy tonight. I would ask what, where is other weapons or where are other weapons in ammunition? Where does that fall in the policy realm? Maybe it's not here, but where is it? Because I'd be concerned about it. And I... Firearms have a specific definition. One is a firearm versus what you're talking about. And sometimes it's in another something. So I want to... My question is where is it? And it doesn't have to be weapons. Student behavior, right? Because the only one listed, this is the only one listed for students, is specifically firearms. Weapons are covered in student handbooks. It seems to me number two has no point in being in there at all. Number one covers it, which is knowledge. Honestly. Honestly. That's it. If you didn't know you had it, well then yeah, we're gonna understand that. That's where the moment's right there. Anything else that's gonna be locked up, I don't care the circumstances, I don't care. Well, you know, if we have a rule and we're serious about it, we reverse the hunting gun that's under the coats, which shouldn't be there at that point. But if it is, didn't know. I didn't think he was bringing it to school. He didn't know. It wasn't like he left it there on purpose and he wasn't gonna hurt anybody. It was because he didn't remember. He forgot. He didn't act. He forgot it was there, right? Versus... So what about the... I'll just play devil's advocate. What about Lori's student who says, yep, I knew it was there, but I didn't intend to bring it into the building. Right, that's against the rules. That is against the rules. And no one's questioning whether it's against the rules. The issue is whether the one-year expulsion can be modified. It says you can modify it. But also that it's not limited to these items. So whatever we put in there, it doesn't mean that's the only thing we can consider. But why are we creating that obvious loophole of it? It wasn't gonna hurt anybody. Well, it's not a loophole. It's a sentencing factor. It's a sentencing factor, basically, to use a chemical analogy. Yeah, look at Michelle's example. If her daughter could say, I didn't know it was there, I was very different from, I knew it was there, but I was gonna drink it later. Right, exactly. That's number one's cover for her daughter. And I think what Lori had said about bringing it to the board, I think it's important, which is in here, I think it's important that even if it was accidental, that you understand how important it is. So that you don't, it's not something, except that... Well, if nobody takes an expulsion hearing, like it has a serious reason. Right, but that's what I'm saying. It needs to proceed, even if you didn't need to do it. Well, I mean, none of these are mandatory, but obviously, if the language's in there, students are gonna latch onto it. That's right. As will their parents, and they will use it to appeal. Yeah. Well, what happens if we just eliminated number two? And number four policy. I would be, if you wanna make a motion to do that. I'm asking how everyone feels. I move we eliminate number two. And I'm gonna leave that as a single. You can do four later if you want. Okay. I wanna eliminate number two. Second. I have a question of when number three would actually come before. Yeah, why would you need a gun if you're disabled? Well, maybe a disability. The misconduct is related to the disability, the fact that they brought it could be related to their disability. I would not. Doesn't the IEP procedure say that? That anything in a disciplinary issue, if you are on an IEP and it's related to your disability, any disciplinary measure may not apply. Is that not true? This is an automatic. Even if a child who has a disability brings a firearm that child needs to come for an expulsion here. So I would be very reluctant to do anything with number three. Yeah, I don't think it's a problem. Oh, I don't think you should eliminate number three. Oh, sure, okay. All right. Right, exactly. That would be, but it would still, yeah. Okay. Do we have action to do that? So I've heard the question, there is two right now. So I've heard the question so far is what about other weapons? Any other questions to bring back for further conversation? I don't know. We've got a motion. We've got a motion. I apologize. Then we'll get back to you. I don't think we're, it's not horn for action tonight. Oh, right. So it's just advice. We're just having a discussion. We're just suggesting to the committee to take out some of the two first reading. Just discussion. You can certainly do a straw poll if you wanted to come out with two. No, you're right. I think we'd like to hear. Thank you. This is all first reading. It's all first reading. Got it. I would like to know, I mean, you know, if this policy is, if any part of this list around the sanction is required actually by state law, and I don't, this is a mandatory BSBA policy. I don't know how much of the policy itself is. And I can see the legislature wanting to control that. I mean, BSBA is recommendation. Because we've got so much time now. So it's specific to those four recommendations? Yes, yes. I remember being in the legislature during the shotgun in Iraq and the pickup conversations. And it was, it's hotly debated, each of these little exceptions and conditions and possibilities when it comes to guns. So it's possible, like Bridget's saying that somebody actually has already told us what to do. People in orange vest when they're recently. Yes, they are. So do we need to take, is that, do we have further discussion on any of the first readings? Okay. Thank you. Good, so we, moving on to agenda six, we have a third reading on the in-district elementary school transfer policy. I have copies of this. Which we do have. They're different from what was in the original agenda. Right, there was a, well we, I have two copies. The one that was emailed with the original agenda is the same thing that you've seen before. And it is, what was it? The one that Lisa just gave us is the really good one that was in our email. This just came last. I was very pleased. That's all right, yep, I know which one that is. Wow, we wouldn't have had to talk about this three times. It probably kind of turned it out. Ryan, before we jump all the way away from the range of policy. Yeah. Can I ask the tobacco policy? Yeah. Clothing that has advertisements on it. Yes. Is that, is that something that's in the handbook? So if I came to school with the shirt that said. So that means student self-expression. So that's a different kettle of fish altogether. So when you're talking about students self-expression, please help me when I go off the rails here. The law is based on a Supreme Court ruling called Tinker. And you have to be able to say as an administrator that the expression will cause substantial interference to other students access to their free and appropriate public education. So for example, I'll give you the. Or a disruption. Or a substantial disruption. Right to the school day. Courts of rule that a confederate flag fits that description. And so a school leader is perfectly reasonable to say, sorry, Ryan, you need to take that off. Or turn it inside out. Or turn it, we can't see it. That would be very tricky. I would say we were gonna go after something on someone's shirt. I don't know that I could say with a straight face that that would be a substantial disruption and or preventing someone else's access to their public education. It was just kind of a curiosity. It wasn't a huge point. No, no, no. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that. So the presence of tobacco products and people coming to school with cigarette shirts on or whatever, whether or not that would make. Where I think I would wonder about it is for someone who's a fan of race car driving. And if they wore a shirt that the sponsor included something like that. And I don't know that I would feel comfortable saying that that would fit the bill. It's a tricky, it's a very tricky area. There was this U.S. Supreme Court decision where the high school students unfold unfurled a banner that said, bomb hits for Jesus. And they were disciplined for that. And the U.S. Supreme Court said that that was okay. And actually said that that Tinker standard was maybe not the only standard that could apply. And in that opinion talks quite a bit, however, about the public health interest for students and illegal drug use. And that that is another substantial interest that the school district has and allowed that. But that wasn't what someone was wearing. And it wasn't tobacco. It's a very tricky area. I don't have the tobacco policy in my pack. Tobacco prohibition. It should be first in the state for your first reading. Yes, please, thank you. Does tobacco substitutes cover vaping? I hope so. That's what I recognize. That's how I would approach it. So it's importing those state law definitions that we could look at those. I would be surprised if those don't include vaping at this point. One way they got it, we should include vaping. I'm looking at your rules. I've got tobacco substitute means products, including electronic cigarettes or other electronic or battery powered devices that contain and are designed to deliver nicotine or other substances into the body through inhaling vapor. And that have not been approved by the US FDA for tobacco cessation or other medical purposes. So moving on to third reading in district elementary school transfer policy. Lisa, for any discussion on this discussion or can we skip on to item seven? So if there's just just so we're moving on, if there's no discussion on this, then I think these changes will be accepted and it'll be warranted for adoption in this form. That's what everyone says. This says, do you need only a way to approve of transfers through extraordinary services between Roxbury Elementary and Union? Yes. Roxbury, is that what it means? Four months earlier. One month? Yeah. For stability. Thank you. One of the things is we, this is all kind of referencing back to the agreement that both towns approved in the sense that there was sort of, this was sort of, this was a long discussion at that level before the towns agreed to come together and the value of maintaining the elementary here and kind of the conditions of that. But everybody knows that the decision that happened this year doesn't necessarily apply five years from now. So it's kind of a, we're going to start this way. Well, what happens if there are a lot of little kids that would strengthen the Roxbury School? How do you, how do you, that's a one part of our farm to table program or this, we have a farm that's very tight into the school and in flux. Even if it was three kids would make a big difference, I think. So would you need to define an extraordinary circumstance to strengthen the Roxbury School by bringing in more kids? That's an excellent question. Yeah. I think at this point, yes, under this policy, we were trying to keep it balanced between the two. But. And I understand that it's the impulse to keep this school strong as possible. I don't want to leak in here of the opportunity to strengthen it the other way. Okay. So the anticipation is we, I'm sorry. Go ahead. As you can see, we've had parents from the Roxbury, or students right now ask me questions about them. I worked in downtown, I'll tell you I like to take my kids to the elementary. If in the future, the board administration is hearing there's a more reciprocal relationship between both UBS and RBS. So the board would likely revisit and consider making changes. But at this point in time, we really don't anticipate there are several relationships between each changes. Yeah, just indeed. Right. Maybe Roxbury gets students from their place because they're a cheaper property and new access in the school district. You know, in five years, it could be a different place also in 10 years. We actually had that discussion in the merger meeting to say, suppose I said, I think my child would do better in a small school. Yeah. Yeah. Change the policy in two or three years. Yeah, I think one of the goals behind this policy and behind the way we're dealing with the mergers to go with the merger agreement and kind of enforce stability and get a structure in place. And then, you know, as it evolves, if we start to see opportunities for change that kind of preserves that stability, I'm trying to say no now. Yeah. You're gonna have a really big problem. Yeah. Yeah. We may, for instance, we may see individual families moving from one of our towns to another of our towns in the middle of the elementary period. I don't think we necessarily considered that other than that there, that might be an extraordinary. That might be a great chance. Well, but we have a consistent policy of kind of letting people finish out, too. Finish out the year. Finish out the year. I mean, you know, I think there are, that could be considered extraordinary. They've already been going there for three years. Yeah, I remember. Okay. Can I point something out? Thanks to my colleague, Lori Gossens. The statutory sanctions are in 16 VSA, 1166, and they are listed as such. So there's statutory requirement for that. For those four. One, three, three, four. So for the question was, It's in the statute. Are those sanctions required by law? They are, and it's in 16 VSA, 1167. That's as high as me in either the fact they exist or how they're written. Yeah. Might have been a guy. It might have been a conversation. It might have been a committee I was on. It might have sounded really familiar. Let's take note of that. No. Any other committee you're part of? Like, what other exceptions would come up? Okay. Well, that answers that debate. All right. So just so we're clear, we are good with the industry policy. Yay. That's going to be. Thank you, Ryan. That's going to be. We should have, I think. Orns. For adoption. For adoption. In 516. And now. So on to item seven. Fourth reading. Class size. Policy on class size? At this point. So we're done? Right. At this point people are the same with the industry. There's one, so it looks like, on the version I have it looks like you changed the shell back to must. Am I looking for it? What do you do? All the shell is what we will. No. Okay, there was a version that was one that had a, it actually had a. A straight line. A straight line, which did not come out here. So that's okay. It's correct, it is on that. But there were two, so that's not what you're showing. There's two small things. As I said, no one has a female. They should both say guidelines. K-8. Because K-8 says guidelines 912 parameters. Last time the board said they wanted both to be guidelines. Okay. And there's one change that we want to put on the table that Tina and I have discussed, but I think this requires discussion, which is the change that Tina suggested. The last time we talked about this, so this is on page two under the chart, one, two, three paragraphs down. The last sentence says the principal has discretion to approve these course offerings, even if doing so brings the minimum average for the content area below the guideline. The last time we talked about the policy, Tina asked about adding, after considering other alternatives, the principal has discretion. I said I wanted to talk to the high school principal, which I did, who does not have any concerns with that. So I think that changes on the table, but it has not been considered by the board. So we're all out there for discussion. It changes the outcome. Can you read the line again, please, Bridget? It would say that the sentence, after considering other alternatives, comma, the principal has discretion to approve these course offerings, even if doing so brings the minimum average for the content area below the guideline. And one I had said in the last discussion is, Mike is very good at this. He does this very well. I just wanted in the policy in case he wasn't there. Okay. So are we approving this fourth reading or are we doing another meeting to do that? Can we say we approve it with the addition? I think we can say we approve it with the addition. It's very fun. Let's do it. So the motion, we see that I move that we approve the class size policy with the following changes. Nine to 12 class size parameters changed to guidelines. And the language inserted in the last sentence of the third paragraph after the high school chart, after considering other alternatives, comma, the principal has discretion. One second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Class size policy, congratulations. Okay, time check. I suggest that we table number nine, I know we've done this before, until May 16th. Let's definitely do it on May 16th. So I feel it's almost quarter to nine and we're gonna move to Michelle. We're probably losing some brain power as well. I'm gonna have a 415 flight tomorrow. I gotta get to the airport at 415, sorry. This much patience. Okay. Which leaves us with the update on the search process and appointment for the screening committee. I think one item we knew under the superintendent's search process, I think we should ratify the change on the Mondays. It's starting at four o'clock, it's starting at 430. Teachers have a mandatory meeting till 415 those days. And we want, obviously we want teacher and staff participation, so. It probably makes it easier for everyone. Yeah, it probably makes it easier for everyone. So just put everything back in half an hour. Jim, what is the meeting schedule? Have it? Have it somewhere. Well, don't worry about it. It's the 7th, 14th, and 21st. The 7th would be, it was originally from 4 to 530. It'll move back from 430 to 6. The 14th and 21st would be pushed back from 4 to 7, under the change from 430 to 730, and then all day on the 29th. It was changed from the 21st to the 22nd. Okay. So the 22nd, so the 7th, 14th, 22nd. And 29th. And 29th. 29th being, could be all day. All day, yeah. That's the, that's when we walk folks around. 29th is the, what is this? All day. It could be, it depends on. I was in the 22nd, so I'm moving to hear how you're thinking of your committee and how many people are in it. Do you have too many people? And that's what we're thinking of. We have a lot of people. I, you are in a favorable position. As the only Roxbury volunteer. Yes. We appreciate very much. We appreciate it very much. Does that schedule change create problems for you? No, I'll find a way. I think it is the 22nd that would be the full day because that's the interviewing of semi-finalists. Well, and I'm wondering if it's not both of those days. I think there's two interview days and then I think the 29th is when the. We call back the final. Yeah, we call back the final and do the walk around and have them be. That's the 4th of June. Oh, okay. So that's the 4th of June? Yeah. Yeah. Either has to. Well then. That's why you do it. Yeah. And they are applicants. I thought the 4th of June was the board. Oh, it's both. It's both. That's not a meeting. That you know of? Well, it will be. No, it was an additional adding on that. Is that going to be an added on board meeting? I think by the 4th the steering committee's for more to know. Right. So the 29th is basically when the screening committee reviews reference checks and then identifies the three candidates to recommend to the board. And can you remember why it would come to the board on the 4th instead of the 6th when we have a regular scheduled meeting? Yes, because we have a full, like it's going to be a big day for the candidates there. And then we have a regular schedule on the 6th of board agenda, policy, et cetera. So we're not going to have time to fit it all in. I'm asking that because we were just discussing. So it's clear to the whole board that it will be another board meeting. Yes. Interviewing the finalists and then choosing. I did not have that on my calendar. Hearing it for the first time. Was that not on the? It was discussed for the first time. But maybe it didn't get on the schedule. I hopefully don't have. Well, and that was the meeting in which there were a lot of board members not there. Because it was great. Right. All right. So are we selecting the members? We are selecting the spring committee because they're meeting on Monday. OK. So can we go to the easy ones first? My suggestion is go to the easy ones first. And then what I was thinking is to have folks just circle. They're top three. And we'll see where the matches are. And that'll decide it for us. And where there's not agreement, we can debate those. Let's start with the teachers. Well, first of all, let's start with a board and the leadership team and kind of see how many numbers we have. 12 total. My suggestion is two leadership team, two board, four teachers, four community members that give those 12. No student. Oh, we should have one student. So I can't say it again. We need to knock someone off either the teachers or the. And when you say teachers, are you including all faculty and staff or just teachers? Yeah, you must be. I'm here to all faculty and staff. Can you give me that number proposal again? Two leadership team, two board, one student. One student, so we're at five. Either four or three community members, parents, and either four or three teachers or other staff. Do we have a maximum number? 12. So not a maximum number? Well, we agreed on this at the meeting on the night. Yeah, we might want to set the maximum number of 10. And we told them 10 would be hard, so we got a maximum number of 12. So yes, that's the maximum. So we're resolved on 12 now. So after the excluding the staff, teachers, and what was the last one that you said? The one student. Student? No, never mind. And we do have two leadership team members here. I don't know if you guys want to weigh in and put on. Us weigh in? Yes. We're three leadership team members. We would like to if that's OK. Yes. We had a pretty lengthy discussion as a leadership team, and I articulated this to you, Jim, and in my email with that information that we are strongly advocating for three members. And those members all represent diverse parts of the leadership level. One is Mary Lundin, who comes with a variety of levels of experience. I was listed number two as the building principal rep, and then felt strongly that Grant should be there for the business. So we just listening to the numbers, I respect, totally trying to have, running a committee myself, trying to limit the numbers, but for a district of 1,000 plus students, and superintendent being our direct supervisor, I'm advocating for the leadership team that we have at least three members. Makes it easier to choose between picking off a community member and a teacher. You mean send both of them to three? And three from each of the? I mean, I'm not sure. What is your head of teacher for my building? Think about that, because we have two community members and then one Oxbury. I think we should have four community members. I think that ultimately they're the owners of this district. And this is an opportunity for building some faith, I think, in the community around what we're doing next. I might be overstating it, right? It's just a committee. It's a committee that recommends to the board. But the more community members we involve in this process, at some point, the stronger this is going to feel going through our decision. So that's all I would say. I'm not opposed to having three leadership team members, by any means. But I think that if we look at who are we hiring this person for? Typically, we're hiring this person to lead the district for the owners of the district. That's it. And the rest of us are all just trying to make it right for the owners. Not for our bosses, not for the person. Not because we supervise them, not for any other reason. So we just have to be very sensitive to the engagement of the community during the process of superintendent hiring. And it could be engaged in some other way. But I think we need to have an engagement. So could we have 13 people on the committee? I don't think Michael quit if we do. Right. OK, that's all I'm saying. Michelle. So both of these students, I know them. And they're both very small. They could sit on one seat. They could sit on one. They could sit on one. What is that? I can't catch up. Keep going, keep going. I prefer not to choose between them. They're very good. There's probably some small community members, too. They wouldn't take a block. Oh, I see. They wouldn't demand a lot of resources. I need you to explain the gender issue. Yeah, I know one of them. She's your next door neighbor, right? He's going to recuse himself from this discussion. If that was the standard, I'd be recused, too. Yeah, I'd be recused, too. We'd all be recused, remember? All of these, too. Is there another opportunity to engage community members that I'm just glossing right over? Well, in the process of one of those days that we can't decide what it is, the 22nd or the 29th, there should be an opportunity for what I would call a community forum so that people could come in and ask the candidates questions. Except that the application process is confidential. So that will happen on June 4th, when the three candidates only define the two other schools. And there would be opportunities then for the community to be involved. So this is different from the other administrative hiring processes, we have three candidates rather than one? Yes. And I checked on that. Because the other ones we basically approve the superintendent here, we're making a hundred. So that's a robust step. We actually really emphasize that step, get the word out, get people to be aware that they have an opportunity. The committee structure has less meaning to me in that sense. I mean, I do still like the idea of having a ton of community members on the committee. But at some point, we need to get people to say, I met them, I'm glad they chose that person, or boy, that was a big mistake. So if we can commit to kind of having a good, solid forum there, I mean, I think that solves a lot of problems. It's also an interesting thing to watch your candidates deal with a large, I mean, I know superintendents that have been hired in bigger towns and cities, in which one of the process was to be in a room with 300 people asking you questions? Yeah? So, I mean, I also want to say the teachers feel somewhat of leadership team that superintendents are hired that very directly affects their lives and they want, you know. The aspect of that is that the knowledge of the details that the leadership team has is extremely valuable to sussing out who's the best candidate. Yes. And not everyone's known as knowledge of as many details. And I mean, I know I'm trying to represent Roxbury, but I'm doing it because I don't think anyone else is. Lisa represents for Roxbury in this committee. So. I think that's more important, honestly, than because they approve of their supervisor, right? That piece is what matters and I don't really care whether they approve of their supervisor otherwise. Just comment to that because it doesn't have to fail. Yeah. There's a lot that goes into that role of supervisor and a lot of what he's just speaking to as part of that, but when you're looking at that system systematically, we're not, when I say that, I'm not just saying, you know, this is important to us because it's our supervisor, but that supervisor does dictate the vision, the direction, the movement of the district and we are really a very critical piece of that. And so that position is why it's so critical for us in terms of a supervisor role. We all have to be working together. Makes sense. Okay. I think what I want to be careful of though in that is that the vision that exists internally while that should be informing the vision to come, it can't control vision to come, right? So obviously we don't want disruption for no reason, but we have to be cautious about the balance between all of these things. And you know, ultimately the board has the same, right? So I'm not, I don't feel concerned about it without, but I really think, and I think honestly, they overlap so much that we're not even arguing, but you know, the idea that you know what it takes to get these, to what needs, what a supervisor or what a superintendent needs to do and how they need to do it in order to be effective. And I think those things all go together. So. So are we at three community members, three teachers, three administrators, one student, and two school board members? I want to inject something else in the mix. We can double count. We have people who are teachers, community members and parents all at the same time. That's very tricky. It's tricky, but. Or sly. I don't love it either, but I think we can, I think we can say that we have people who pray more than one perspective. I don't think we, I don't think we feel really shortchanged by that. I think they would, but I think we can go to three community members if we have two of the teachers who are also community members. So we have three community members plus two teachers who. Are in the community. Our community member group and the parent group. Well, the only one on the teacher's list who doesn't live in Montpelier is Laura. Yeah. Is that right? Yeah. But I was going to propose for the teachers, maybe other people have opinions. I don't have a strong opinion about this. And I feel like we could put their six names in it and draw three of them. Unless. Yeah, I think they're all fantastic too. But I think it might be valuable to prioritize a few of those, especially only going to have three community members because they are community members. They're parents. They have that perspective. They've had that experience with the schools as well as their teacher experience, which they'll bring to the table. I don't think we should see them as community ambassadors, but I think we can obviously say that these people have seen the district from multiple perspectives. So you're going to make the decision of which teacher doesn't come? No, we can't give all the teachers there. No. Absolutely. I mean, you have to eliminate one. And two is for the most part. Oh, that's right. You're so right. Right. So you know, Jim, I like the thing you're going with and I appreciate it. And I'm not totally jumping on board with Steve of having more community members there. But I'll admit, I was surprised when I was going through the list of the Montpelier folks, how many names I already knew, not as personal acquaintances, but already like through board action, how many have served on committees before, et cetera. And I was a little bit surprised by that. You're going to know the same people do all the same things over and over. It's true everywhere. Right, but I thought a little bit like we should get some new folks in there potentially as well. So the idea of having a teacher sort of as a parent and a community member kind of defeats that ability to get some more direct perspective or some new people involved in the process. Not really saying no bad idea, but I was, again, not knowing as many Montpelier members as you guys do, I was surprised. Hey, those are older board members. I've worked with them. I've worked with this and... Well, I'm just saying if we want to bring, if we don't want to pollute it out to 14 or 15, and we want to bring it down to say, yeah, maybe we can do is we can go with teachers who wear multiple hats and bring multiple perspectives. I don't think we need to. If we have two board members plus three leadership team, that's five, a student is six, and three staff and three community members makes 12. That's right. If I default, we're going to have two out of the three teachers also as community members, at least if not three out of the three. Well, it's a little bit like Steve ought to go more like four. I'm not sure about Russell. I'm not sure where he is. Oh, I guess it just said community members. He said community members. No. But... Yeah, that's, you're right. So there you have it. Yeah. It's only Laura who's not... Do it, since teachers seem to urge, can we do the community members? So let's just get some five slotted down. So we've got to do three leadership teams. Do we agree to that? To board. We seem to be heading in that direction. Pam makes a good case. Yes. I said yes. No objections. So we have five. Just so we're clear, the leadership team members are Pam Arnold, Mary Ladine, and Grant Geisler. Okay. And board members are, they'd make a list. Tina Muncie, Lisa Frost. Peter has taken his hat out of the ring. I think perhaps we could put the two students in a hat and draw them out, because I don't know how I'd do that. Yeah. I don't see why they can't both do it. Just go from 12 to 13. Yeah, let's put both students on the experience. Yeah. I think that's fair. I think that's good. And I can't imagine though, cost point lots of souls. And they may commit to those times, but it may turn out that they can't both make them all. Their lives are very busy. On the other hand, I'd have to say, when you've asked everybody else to commit, so they should commit too. Yeah, we want them there the whole time. Yeah, definitely. Yes, exactly. So should we tackle teachers first or community members first? How did you propose doing community? I was going to have people, well, I think we're going to all agree on Rhett as a Roxbury member. Yes, thank you, Rhett. Thank you, Rhett. And then trust Lisa, too. Well. For something that happens to Lisa, as you let us know, maybe I can go on her speed. Is that ever a thing? No. No. She's like more than one Roxbury member on for one. Secondly, you impressed me. You seemed like you'll be good. You've got great experience. And you showed up and survived this whole meeting. Yeah, you showed up. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So he's on. So he's on. We've been right along. Yes. So are we going to pick two more from the Roxbury members? From the community members? Yeah, community members. I'm just going to go around the table and ask people who their two choices are. How about that? What if you've been around the next? I got mine. No, we're fine. Okay, why don't you take five seconds and circle them so that way you don't? You're not influenced by other people's choices. And no scratching it. Jim's going to be checking. How many minutes? Five minutes? Five seconds. Five seconds? I have to reread two of them. You just know everyone, so it's easy for you. I have to go by what they wrote. For you? No, I'm okay. You know? Stacy and Ken. Denise Bailey and Serika Tandon. Is that Serika? Yeah, sure. Oh, wait, wait. Stacy Sheehan and Serika Tandon. Rebecca Kobans and Stacy Sheehan. Stacy and Serika. Steve. Nathan and Serika. Denise and Serika gives us four for Stacy, six for Serika, and I'm going to date Denise's third minute of three. Can I ask, we're choosing two, right? Can I ask that we selected Serika and that we go back and choose the second, kind of a rank order preference voting type of thing rather than just have it be a plurality? Sure. So everybody choose one now. One out of the last, the three. Yeah, exactly. One out of whoever's, I guess there's two people really that are, it's Stacy and Denise really are the two. Yeah, well, let's see. Four people got votes. Yeah, but there's two that are way ahead. They're like the seconds are both close. It's Stacy and Denise. Stacy and Denise. If you just want to say, Ryan, who would you choose between Stacy and Denise? Yeah, I'd vote for Stacy the first time. Oh. So I don't know. I can't vote. Stacy or Denise? Well, I did the same thing. I voted for Stacy the first time. Right. And I voted for Denise. You need to find them. We go around. We need to find the people who didn't vote for either of them. Well, it's you, Steve. And there's three of us who didn't. I voted for Stacy. Yeah, maybe I voted for. Oh, maybe it's, maybe they didn't vote. Maybe there's people in vote for it. So yeah, I would go Stacy. OK, there we go. So our three community members are Stacy Sheehan, Sirika Tandon, and Brett Williams. That's really crazy how that. OK. The level of agreement there is crazy. Yeah, because they're all for us. I was extremely surprised. Yeah. Thanks for coming. Thanks for coming. Yeah, thanks for having me. Thank you very much. Yeah. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We had a fantastic group too. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. OK. Three teachers slash educators. I suggest we do two teachers and one non-teacher. The Morgan and Laura. Yeah. Why? I thought they were four teachers. What about Julie and Laura? They're not teachers. There are special teachers. Yes, they are teachers. They're teachers. They're categorized as teachers. Sylvia and Julie. Well, they're teachers. They're teachers. OK, they're not classroom teachers. Well, that's a different category. They're teachers. OK. Ross, should we go for one classroom teacher, one non-classroom teacher, and one non-teacher? There is equal. So it's proportionate of everybody. Yeah, sure. OK. So that makes voting easier. Can we distinguish those quickly? So, Julie. More than music classroom teacher, Laura is a classroom teacher. OK. And Sylvia and Julie are non-classroom teachers, and Peter and Russell are non-teachers. Steph. OK. So, can we do them all at once? Let's do category by category. Tina Morgan or Laura for the teacher's vote. I won't choose. I'm back to putting an act. You're what? I'd be happy to draw them out of a hat. Yeah. Yeah, I'd be happy to draw them out of a hat. You can go around. Maybe everybody else will have a choice and it'll work. OK. More different. I'm Morgan. I'm Morgan too. That's a tough one. They're all incredible stuff. We have great people. I have great confidence in school. Julie or Sylvia? Julie. I can't. I don't think I can go along. OK. Go back to Lisa. Ryan. Julie. Sylvia. Sylvia. And I'm Sylvia too. I don't have who they are in my memory right now. Julie is a community member who is also a special educator in the district this year. Sylvia is an ELL teacher. Has had experience at all three buildings and also a community member. Well, Julie's new to the district this year in terms of being employed. Sorry, but I did say community member and kids in the district. Sorry. Sylvia. The final slot. Peter Wach or Russell Leight. Peter is an IA, an antenna community member. They're both community members and Russell Leight is a tech support specialist. Peter. Peter. Russell got it in late. Russell's on the curriculum for me. Yes. Somebody go with Peter. In the back. No preference. OK, so for the record, I think this is a fantastic committee and I really know we'd love to bring people off too. Tina Muncie, Lisa Frost, Mary Lundin, Grant Geisler, Jenna Krussman. Krusman. Krusman, sorry, I should know that. Gina Nagel, Stacey Sheehan, Serika Tandon, Rhett Williams, Morgan Lloyd, Sylvia Fittigan. Great. Great. Good hands. Yep. Dude, would you mind if one time running through the schedule again for the meetings just because there was a date that got added that I don't think I had. It's not on that email. OK. I think Lisa had tonight. So I would put a point second. I think you'd be determined to send. Yeah, I have to say after the whole discussion, I'm not very clear on time. Yes. I got the days, but I'm not very clear on time. That can be sent out immediately, right? Yeah. Because you're going to have to notify everybody. Yeah. And I just want to add that if there's a board meeting that's being added to the calendar, that we're all very clear as soon as possible that there's a board meeting that's not on the regular calendar. One thing is so that Jim could act on the one thing. Yes. And that is I propose that there be a committee to, with the charge, to write a superintendent evaluation document to present to the board for its editing and changes. Isn't that part of the policy committee? An evaluation document. Mm-hmm. As a policy? No, I'm not, I'm proposing, it's not a policy. It's just you usually have a document by which you evaluate your superintendent. And we talked about getting it done, and it would be really nice if we had it done before we hired. Yeah, no, I forgot. And I have talked to Nancy Reed, who is on the Montpelier board. She's willing to be on that committee. And she's willing to be on that committee. If another board member would like to be on that committee, she's willing to have them chaired for. What is that committee? Committee would be to the right. But that's not the work of the Montpelier board. That's the work of the Montpelier board. She could be a community member, be a community member. But then there would need to be a board member. We have a board member from this one. It's very late, so I didn't mean to propose that we solve all these problems right now, but the issue of the committee that Jim could work on and have a discussion about if the board did not thought it was a good idea, it was all I'm asking for. Jennifer the 16th, and I know that Nancy, so I'll reach out to Nancy and tell her that we're going to discuss it on the 16th. She cannot be here on the 16th. I'll just get her permission for us to volunteer her name. Much like Peter. Can we just stay for the record? This will be the last board meeting of this board in Roxbury for this school year. Sorry, Michelle. I move to adjourn. Second. Thanks, everyone.