 Rochester Stockbridge Unified District Articles of Agreement Review Committee at 632-631. Oops, I don't want to go there. I want, there you go. Thank you. That's where I want to be. All right. We'll call to order any adjustments to the agenda. It's pretty straightforward, but anybody have, that doesn't mean articles added or anything like that. That's just, if we need to, I figure what we have here is covers, you know, what says, prepare for our said board. Oh, there you are, Justine. Hello. Hi. Can you, can you speak? I can speak. Zach was done early, so I'm here in fall. Yay. So glad to have you. So glad to have you. Good. Justine, any adjustments to the agenda? No. No, thank you. Charity, any adjustments to the agenda? No, I'm good. Yeah, we can do hand signals too. You can say I'm good. Tim, any adjustments to the agenda? I'm good. Good. Thank you. And I think we're moving on to approve minutes from Monday, December 21st, 2020 minutes. And I believe, Charity, you had some corrections. Not necessarily corrections. I just think we need to clarify a couple of things a little better maybe. Okay. So on the very first page, the first piece that's written in blue, it says that Charity asked for clarification on dates. I don't believe I asked for clarification on dates. I was asking for clarification on that there would be a definitive way to differentiate the vote on this subject matter. It is being done as a special school board meeting versus part of town meeting based on the information Dina had given to us during the conversation. So dates, I think sums it up too small. It's not clarity enough. Yeah. Charity asked for clarification. Can we just say Charity asked for clarification? I mean, do you need some more there? I think we need to put in that the fact that it's going to be a special school board meeting held within the context of the town meetings. Got you. In two separate days because Rochester votes differently than Stockbridge. So. Discuss as well as the two towns running on different days, one day apart. Dates and special school board meeting? Yes. Being held during town meeting within the two towns. Good. Let's write that in. What are you working on, Charity? Writing that down. With a pen or a pencil? Pencil. Yes. No, I love it. Mary Ann Martin taught me well. Uh-huh. We'll send it by mule to the writer. We'll be up to pick it up. I think we can be a little informal on this. So we all okay with the change, indicate by thumbs up, Justine. Tim, you okay with that change? Yep. Good. And then, and what you'll do Charity, I think what you'll do is you'll email these back with the changes. You'll email this back to Christie. Okay. Since you can post it. And then you're next. You had another? Yep. The next one is I believe the third section of blue writing. It says Charity asked if the changes would be clearly visible to voters. Dina responded. She believes it would be too long for voters to understand. I believe that was Justine's question. Uh, where? I'm kind of waiting for Justine to remind me if that was her. Oh, I see. Yeah, section. It's a right of the blue right above number three. Yes. It's actually still in section two. The last section, it says it's the last blue right before number three. I don't think that was my question. Okay. Did Clara, I did talk later on about the concept that I didn't ask initially if I understood what she was representing during this time. I was trying to get it to work out for everyone later on, but that's not my question. Okay. My question. So leave it as is. I guess I'm unclear what it was, but that's fine. Okay. I think that was what she was referring to. It would be crossed out. As we see in a draft tonight, it's the old language is crossed out and the new language is written in. Oh, okay. So maybe, uh, yeah. And then I did ask the question of would there be a visibility for the voters? So it does. Okay. Thank you. Good. Good. No, this is, this is exactly what we're supposed to do with the minutes. We're supposed to go through them and make sure they represent what happened. So this is right on. Do you have any more? Um, yep. The next blue section down. If there's a way that we could put in, instead of it saying in the second line of the blue section, discussions that were brought to the BOE discussion, uh, it wasn't just the discussions. I felt we had an obligation to go back to looking at the, everything from the 706 study through the BOE presentation, not just what happened at the BOE presentation. But I don't know if we actually need to rewrite that or anything at all because two sections down, two paragraphs down still in the blue, she does mention that Tim and I both suggest going back to 706 meeting information. So I don't know. I guess that first paragraph just confused me a little. I think, I think it's pretty clear to me. Um, I mean, I know that was for me, this has been a process of, as we talked about it, I understood it further, you know, in the sense that initially I thought it was just the discussions at the BOE presentation and didn't realize that there was a lot talked about in the preparation meetings before that. So in some ways, I think if they read the whole section, as you say, okay, it feel, I feel like it, it, it tells, it tells the story. Okay. But, but I'm happy to, I mean, if, you know, as I say, I'm happy to change it. Um, and we know that's, I mean, you know, you and I, charity, you know, after we've discussed, we know that's, we know at what level we want to go back and do that. But I, I think it's, I think it's clear, Justine, what do you think? Do you think it's sort of clear what we're talking about? I think it's clear what we're talking about. I'm actually not exactly sure what, what charity would is really asking right now. I can't. It wasn't a BOE pre, it wasn't a BOE discussion. It was a BOE presentation, I guess is my issue. Oh, okay. So do we just change the word BOE discussion to BOE presentation? Yes. Yes. I think she refers to presentation. I think that's what's intended in that. Okay. So I'll just change that one word. Yeah. Hold on. My fingers are stuck. And I don't know if this one's going to be a big thing or not. So the very last page, it is the third paragraph down reads campus and grade rearrangement language that is used that the board only can decide what kids go where, i.e. grade separation. Are we in four, section four? Page four. So it's. Yep. Page four, third paragraph. Yeah. Um, yes, the where it says the board should lose that power and go to the voters. I don't know that I like that. That's not exactly what the context of that conversation led to. I feel like I said that. That was that section six C or article 60. And I brought that up several times. I think that was my statement. And I think I feel that the language in six C states that it's the board's discretion. Six C actually discusses real property. Oh, yep. I'm getting mixed up. I see what you mean. Yep. Grade separation. The board should lose power. I don't know that the board should lose power was the context of the conversation. I think it was just that the subject matter needed to be discussed more to involve the communities in it. Not that we said the board should lose the power. I think we didn't get that far in that conversation to make that assumption. I just think that statement is a little heavy for the fact that in my opinion, we only treaded lightly on this subject. I would agree with the statement you just made, Charity, in that statement is a little heavy. And I feel like it was more of a discussion that it's not only the board's choice. Should we change it to a discussion that was had regarding consideration of the board's future? I don't know. I don't know. How about something due to the effect of discussion was had over the mechanism for grade change within the district? That sound? I'm fine with that. Mechanism's always a good word because it does talk about the whole way things happen. You okay with that, Tim? Yeah. I was a little concerned with how that was being talked about at the last meeting, but just because we haven't really heard from the principals about how they're going to go forward with that. That really isn't what we're supposed to be doing anyway. It would be a parent concern for sure. I think it was brought up, as my memory, I thought it was brought up as because we did, there's several things on our list tonight that are not actually articles, but are potential suggested articles for change that I think are worth discussing. It's on our list, so we can save it till then and we can talk about whether it's our jurisdiction to talk about it or not. I think that's a fair discussion for any of these things we're talking about. Oh, I realize I made a mistake again. We do not have a secretary once again. Do you want to try, Justine, this time? I can. I will try my best to do a good job at that. You did the first time. Oh yeah, I just don't have a lot of time to write it up in general. I understand. Send me your roughest notes and I think if we go around between the three of us, we can get something for us. Okay, thank you. I just think Pat was very good for us, but I noticed she didn't volunteer to do it again. I think it probably is better if we keep it in our committee. Charity, had your hand up, yes. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm. So what I wrote down, make sure everyone's okay with it. Discussion was had for mechanism of potential campus grade change. Yeah, yeah, good. Hey, that's it for me. Okay, good. I'll make a motion to accept, entertain a motion to accept the minutes as amended of the December 22nd, 21st meeting minutes. Somebody move that. Thank you. Somebody second it for us, please. Thank you, Justine. All in favor signify by saying aye. Good. All right. Let's move on here. Okay, so let's bring up this. Did you all get my email with the hotspots? Yep. The list of hotspots? Not sure. Topic articles. What? What? No, hold on a second. It's not telling me I can get it. Let me try again. When did you send it, Ethan? Oh, did you guys not get it? I don't believe I've gotten anything with that. Just sent it. We got a few from you in the last few days. Well, I just sent it. I sent a couple things. I just sent the amendments that Dina drafted. I sent a explanation of 80%, which was something Joanne brought up last time. Let me just say, sorry, I thought I was all prepared here. Was it in drafts? Sorry. Let me find this for us so we can... Oh, here it is. Okay, good. So it's there. Let me send it again. Is it the one talking about the 51% stuff? Hold on a second. Let me just get this done and I'll respond here. I just sent it to you again. That's funny. I don't know what I did with it then. Because I did it about three hours ago. Okay. This is the list. Sorry. I was hoping to get it out to you early enough so you could at least look over it a little bit, but take some time now. Did you send it to us, Ethan? Yeah. It has in my sent folder AOA Topics is what it's titled. It may take a moment to get there. I know yours last week took a moment. I sent it to you too, Ray. If you want to post it. Yep. I got it and I'll have it up in a second. Okay. So you got it. Justine, do you have it yet? All the wires. It probably goes all the way to Seattle. Who knows? I mean, it's really incredible. We have no idea where this thing goes and then it comes back to us. I might never go on the internet if I knew that. Oh, it's incredible. The web. I mean, it is a web. Tim, do you have it yet? I was reading it. Okay. Charity, you haven't seen it yet? All right. Let me send it one more time. Ethan, I'm good now. I got it. Got it? Great. Okay. All right. So this is what I took from my notes of what we these are all the things that I think we've talked about so far. And at the end, when we're putting together our list, and there was a couple that was added by Joanne that we consider as we go through them. I think what I'd like to write into this is sort of code them priority. And is it advisory or are we talking action that we're recommending? So it's sort of, we want to, we want to number these by the end of the night, I think. Here's my basic thing. We may find that eight things that there's only maybe, you know, one or two really action things on it that we want the board to take on. Don't forget, just a reminder, we do have the time to make changes in May as well, if we feel that's important. And we were talking about what is feasible and what is doable by the board. The board, I don't know if you've looked at the agenda. Well, you haven't yet because it hasn't gone out. The agenda, we have a big agenda with COVID, a lot of COVID things, structures, high school building. That's not a reason not to make substantial changes, but I think we would get a better reception from the board if we are very clear in our priorities in terms of what we say this is what we think is the number one thing we should work on. The way we've been talking, that has been about how reelection of board members happens. And that's the one we've taken the most action on. But at the end of the night, what I want from all four of us, and with public comment, I want a list of, I want this prioritized, number one being our biggest one. And then I also want to categorize each one as advisory or action. In other words, we advise, we just want to, you know, the budget one, for example, might be just an advice that we want that to happen. We think that should happen. But action might be we have, we want submit this amendment to you to consider. So those two qualifications. Does that sound clear for our job tonight? Thumbs up from Charity. Thumbs up from Justine and Tim. Yeah. I thought we were going to bring like two to this month's board meeting. Personally, I mean, we'll see. There may be something else we can mention. But I'm thinking realistically, that's going to get us a lot more bang for our buck. And I'm not speaking as the chairman, because I really do feel like the full board is going to have things to say about these things. We may find that, you know, because several of these are advisory, we can just sort of mention them as well. And then I think we should give them a full report of what we've talked about. Oh, I didn't tell you, by the way. I did, I did write up a little something for the herald of what we've been doing. I mentioned hot topic. You know, that we're looking at all kinds of things. We're looking at promises that possibly were made. And that we're going to make recommendations to the board. So that hope that will be in next week's or this week's this Thursday's paper, just to keep people apprised of what we're doing. So let's start with number one. Budget coded and I might and charity correct me if I wrote this. Right. Budget coded at business office level to reveal expenses at each campus. I think that just from being in a business office, it's actually the coding starts right from the two schools. So it's not at the business office level. It's at the expense level where the expense is happening. So if you've got invoices going to your two office staff in each of the buildings, then it starts there because if the if the paperwork in my understanding, if the invoice is brought to the school and they have to code and validate that it's correct, that's where that first piece happens. So it's at the building level with whoever's handling that. Can you can you can you write because this has been your thing and you clarified it last weekend. I have to say my notes were not as complete or understandable to me as I might have wanted. What you want to see in this article or you know what you want to see in this, what are you asking for? I guess the simplest way to do it would be to say individual location, expense, recognition. You're not asking for two separate budgets, right? That's what she talked about. It's that at some level we know where each every expense happens because they do that anyway. Those can be done that way, yes. But I guarantee you that if I were able to sit down and talk with Tara, she and I would recognize that there are some expenses that will never be able to be recognized in that fashion because they come through SU monies that come through state and federal funding and those will never get this type of recognition. This would be applied to things such as the expenses that are physically happening within the two campuses. So it this will not apply to everything and then there are also HIPAA regs that are going to prevent you from doing some of this at a truly visible level. But for some of these there are ways that are not overly tedious and once you start doing them just become second nature. If Rochester's campus number one and Stockbridge's campus number two and you buy 10 pairs of safety shoes at one campus, you code it SS-1 and for campus number two it's SS-2. It falls in line with your already existing books. What's the intent of it? Why would we suggest to the school board that this be implemented if it's not already? So just as you would with any business, you want to make sure that you are balancing out your income versus expense. In this particular situation and a subject that has come up to many people from the Stockbridge side and I'm not throwing this out to throw either or anyone from any location under the bus, it's not a secret that Rochester had a significantly higher per student expense than Stockbridge before the merger. While yes we need to get to a point where we move forward and see it all as one, you still need to have some way to validate is one school, one campus being as fiscally responsible as the other and if not, where is it coming from? That's the statement right there. I think that's the statement. It's fiscal responsibility. Yeah, well I think that's it. That's the intent is to be able to to confirm fiscal responsibility at both campuses. We've got to remember that we're running two elementary now or one elementary out of two buildings and you guys inherited the expenses of the high school as RSUD. So I mean it's no secret that we were spending a lot of money on the high school students and we were bonding to keep that building open. Now we know that the bonds were split from elementary and high school and I'm not sure that we understand exactly where those bonds monies went. So right now to do the two schools, I think that what Charity is saying makes good sense and then we can track where money is going and you know really be able to find out if we're getting tuition income. So that will show you know that will show if we are getting income from tuition students that we're losing money from tuition students and it will also show what how much we're spending on fuel oil and electricity compared to what stock bridges. You know there's certain things that we can track that show where the expenses are different and what we can do about it. What we need to do is figure out what we can do about these things and by we I mean the board not this committee. Well let me let me try this this so how I've written it here is budget coded at the expense level to reveal expenses at each campus intent to reveal spending equity in real time at at both campuses that's I know I say both campuses but is that the intent and I would say that's advisory right for right today when you go to your meeting next week I would say that's advisory but you know I'm not like it's the other people think I could certainly see as as a person on the board I could see its usefulness like like the questionnaire it's something we can go back to for hard facts when there's questions about how things are getting spent and I I'm sure so I okay I'm gonna so right now it's a budget budget coded at the expense level to reveal expenses I'm seeing to reveal I'm gonna say reveal accounting at each campus intent to reveal spending equity in real time at both campuses and this is advisory it's not like we're looking for is that we agree that we're not looking for an amendment at this time to the articles to make this happen this is something we suggest to the board charity's nodding her head justine how do you feel sums up okay good well let's move on okay so this is a biggie um let's look at dina's did you all get my forward from dina of the article yeah yeah right right I didn't send this to you did I write I'm not seeing it Ethan yeah sorry yeah sorry let me um let me forward it to you right now oops doesn't like you ray here we go so I'll read it out loud article one shall the legal voters of the Rochester Stockbridge unified district amend article seven board composition of the article that should probably be in well no maybe not I don't know of the articles of agreement governing the Rochester Stockbridge unified district to the following article seven board composition the unified district board of school directors shall be comprised of six members who will be initially be elected on an at-large basis by Australian ballot vote of the voters of the unified district in according with the article nine below thereafter the board director shall be elected in the manner specified in article 11 below the membership the unified district three directors okay the membership the unified district board of school directors will be as follows three directors shall be elected from the candidates nominated by the legal voters of Rochester from the legal residents of that town such representatives shall be voted on solely by the legal residents of Rochester three three directors shall be elected from candidates nominated by the legal voters of Stockbridge from among the legal residents of that town such representatives shall be voted on solely by the legal residents of Stockbridge. All directors shall have equal votes on the board. Article 2 shall the legal voters of the Rochester Stockbridge Unified District elect its board of directors by Australian ballot. Okay, or in the alternative she says right here if the proposal is to do all budget public question election of school board directors by Australian balloting then add the following articles. Article 3 shall the legal voters of the Rochester Stockbridge Unified District adopt an annual budget by Australian ballot. Shall the legal voters of the Rochester Stockbridge Unified School District vote on all public questions by Australian ballot. Okay, let's take this obviously the Australian ballot and I almost feel like we don't need to we don't need to worry about Australian ballot or not. I feel like that's that's a good one. We've handed some options to the board. But let's get your intent on what you think about this. Justine you had your hand up. Yes, I want to the very top of the document it says proposed warning to a meta article 11. Isn't it it's article seven right. I think that's incorrect. Yep. And secondly I think the very first sentence under board composition is misleading to what we are proposing and I would propose to edit it to exclude the words at large basis and include elected by their specific towns or could you say that again please. I'm not following where you under board composition. Article seven board composition in bold that first sentence says that the members will be initially elected by initially be elected on an at large basis. I think it would be better to spell that out as elected within each town or their respective towns instead of as I'm wondering if this isn't historical. If this isn't how it had to happen at first and that's why it's in there that I think it's how it initially had to happen. So that's why it's part of the merger but then going forward. I don't know. I mean this is a good question for Dina why it's in there because it does seem to say what already exists. Right. I think this is the way the article looks in the actual articles. I just want to suggest to cross out at large basis and change the wording of that section as another edit. Okay. Yeah. I agree with justine. I'm a little confused on this because if she is in fact trying to keep if Dina was in fact trying to keep the exact historical language I don't think it is because I don't know that that last comment of article 11 below is in it at least not in the copy in front of me in my hands. Okay. So if that was her intent we need to double check that but I agree with justine on the at large basis verbiage change as well. So read to me a change then because I'm I'm still not and I just want to be because I want to make sure I know what I see I see at large and that through me that's you can hear my reading I couldn't quite get that. Initially I think the keyword here is initially who will initially be that's the historical aspect of this. So once the merger starts initially they're going to be voted this way. What I'm not seeing is you know we will now amend that to change thereafter. See I think it's initially and thereafter are the key terms words there because initially what you mean by historically to the way I'm reading this document is that this will be what the voters are voting on as our articles going forward including these edits. Am I incorrect about that? I don't know I don't know that's a very good question. I don't know why she puts that unless it is that it needs to cover something that already happened because that is that's what initially and thereafter um in the manner specified in article 11 below. Oh but I see see if she is saying it's specified in article 11 below so article 11. I think she's come in place from the the what we've already voted on. I mean I did which is what she told us was not supposed to be done so that's I think Justine and I are on the same page in that Dina has written a document that actually contradicts what she told us she was going to do well in some context. It may also be that you know I reminded her of it at about you know one o'clock this afternoon and she did something very fast because she hadn't hadn't done it yet I don't know. I think that she's revised it appropriately but overlooked that sentence that's my take. So so what is our suggested change to her? Well the original one that we decided on the very first meeting was it was not going to be at large so I think I think she just needs to rewrite that one spot. So is it is it the first paragraph that we first sentence under board composition? Yes. To exclude at large basis and reflect that it will be voted by each the representatives from each town will be voted by voters in those towns. And her concern was how are you going to track that if we don't do Australian ballot? So right that's fine we cover that at the bottom and she gives us the options you know that we can present to the board. Okay I get you now that I think I let me ask I will ask her that and I ask her why it's in there. I'm a little confused myself by it says article seven board composition in accordance with article nine below and then it says the man who specified article 11 below and I don't see any article 11 or article nine here. Because those are below in the actual articles that exist already. She's just going to paste this section because this is the only place we're editing. So an article 11 is about terms time? Oh no. Article 11 is the piece of verbiage that caused a bit of controversy and which is why we had asked her to clarify what the actual governing document is because article 11 says that's not the correct document that Ray is showing. That's the one that was presented to the BOE that is not ratified articles. I'm not seeing it. Well at the very end. It's a very yeah it's a very end of that document Ray last time. Go down to page 25. Yeah it's down when it gets down to the numbers. Keep going page 25 go up a little down a tiny so right there. So article 11 is what kind of caused a bunch of confusion because article 11 states that and this is a voted on the article. It states that the BOE presentation and report information of the plan were going to be the governing body. This is why there were so many people from Stockbridge very confused about are the articles themselves the governing document or is the presentation the whole 26 page document that Ray has shown on the screen also a part of governing documents. And Dina came back to us and said no it is the voted on articles only. So a piece of my thing that I have written down as an item to talk about tonight is I'm ready to amend this article in order to get clarification about amending any articles. Yeah that's kind of a circle that I don't know how to make it stop spinning. Yeah no I understand. I don't we haven't really talked about this as the spot where it talks about it. But I think this is the rotten apple in the room at the moment. I think because we had Dina last time clarify to us that the articles that were warned were the governing articles. I think we kind of dropped it a little bit. I'm not sure. It is still confusing even though it submits that we're supposed to be following something the actual articles represent something else. Got you. Yeah I've not seen it like that before. I'm writing it down too as nine on our list. Okay I wouldn't mind if the board got a second opinion on some of this stuff. No I'm perfectly one for that and there is time and there is time for that too once we present to the board. Well let's let's so we've got this change let's get back to the word I get it. No come on Ethan. How do we feel about the actual amend you know the change in itself. Obviously there's some I think it sounds pretty clear but I'm definitely interested in what you say that it's the action we want to happen. Thank you Ray. I think we just need to make sure that our verbiage is solid and I don't know that that's necessarily in this committee's hands. Yes I think if the board as a whole because please remember we're going to make a recommendation to the board as a whole of what they're going to what we would suggest they consider putting to the two towns but ultimately it is in the full board's hands of what they're going to do. So do we need to whittle down every single you know cross your T and dot your I tonight on this. I don't think so as long as the true intent is carried forward and the answers are are you know whittled out before it's presented for towns to vote. Great so I'm I'm going to I have two actions I'm going to ask Dina about that verbiage because I do think that's of the at large in the first sentence and get a response from her and otherwise I think this is I'm going to say this is an amendment proposal to the board so it's an action proposal and I would say I would say this has been from the very beginning this has been one of our first top priorities. Well it's one that makes sense you know we're two small towns and Rochester can outvote Stockbridge by 50 percent so you know if it comes to work out then let's just do it. I mean I would I would put it to number personally I haven't put it to number one for us I think the way we've been talking about it we may find that some of the other things are I mean either that number or that article 11 sounds like it might be a pretty potent one too actually just to be clear. Well I think I think I think this one can be done fairly quickly so I think it should be number one because it can be done. I was wondering I know it's not public comment but I spoke to Dana the lawyer about the specific topic and I actually have an answer on it if you want me to tell you guys what that is. Dana who Dana who? The lawyer. Well you mean Dina? Dina yes. Oh Dina okay. So when I had emailed her about adjusting the weight of the vote so Stockbridge would choose their own Rochester would choose their own representative. She told me that because the state views the school union as one entity everybody has to vote and everybody has to count the only way we can change that is to dissolve. That's straight from her. Well that's then why did she write us an amendment because she did say that we could change anything in our agreement as long as it was voted on. She said that to me in both an email and in person last last time. Oh that's interesting contradiction. And we've also gotten clarification from that from another attorney as well. Yeah so I think we well I think this is I did get as I told you I did get a recommendation of another law firm from Jamie. I think we put it by them and check and certainly this is something I can do hopefully get an answer back before before next Tuesday's meeting. So I will I will get that. Okay all right I just wanted to put that out there but that's what she had told me so thank you. Okay so justine how do you feel about as far as priority? Is this pretty one for us? I think this is definitely priority one. Charity? Yep okay let's put it up it's going to move up to number one. All right and I think and things are changing at the BOE so they would much rather see articles written that fit our needs than what is just rubber stamped. I would I would think so. I mean you know look we're we're we're working to make work what they set up for us you know well exactly right what the legislature set up for us. Yeah just a minute just a minute let's not throw the legislation under the table that quickly. BOE is not following what Act 46 says on several things and both Tim Ash and David Zuckerman have made it very public and and David Scherrer have made it very public that the intent is not being followed by the BOE. So let's let's write what works for the two of our towns and let BOE fight over that and just do what's best for us. Yeah I agree I mean I think this is how we make this work and and if they have a problem with it well then we start fighting that. Okay then to keep us moving I want to get us down to number three and I think this is Tim's thing how does a tie vote get broken on the school board on a school board vote? What's our level of advisory that it's something the board needs to think about certainly. I think it's advisory I don't think this committee ought to spend a lot of time on that but I certainly think that that's something that the board ought to figure out because it very well could come to that at some point and what happens if there's a board member missing or two board members missing you still have a quorum if there's only four so you know I think the board ought to hash that out a little bit maybe not necessarily this month if you've got a whole bunch of stuff to do but certainly sometime in the future. Okay so let's I mean you know we've decided this is an ongoing committee so I think we'll keep it at that place um is that how does that feel Charity as far as um good just Dean thumbs up I've seen thumbs up from both of them just for the record okay uh so uh just do you know uh article five I forwarded on to David uh Rowe um Roo Roo I think it is um just as he went on vacation for the whole week so I'm hoping to have a response from him Dina did not know the issue well enough to speak to it today when I heard back from her um as far as what that means for the high school but I'm sure we'll hear something from David uh early next week and I'll remember to follow up with him any any other comments on that one does the RSUD know how much it's going to cost to do the minimal amount to get the town of Rochester take that building over well I was in our last report I think we had it we'd spent about 10 000 so far it's actually when I get talking about amending minutes um I realize I misspoke in the last and I've been meaning to put this out that the uh the numbers are not quite uh correct and that was my misdating um the number I said three or two to three thousand more that was from the legal firm alone um so there is probably it's in the realm between 10 to probably 17 000 is the last estimate of what it is take going to take to prepare the building waste water um waste waters of the the survey and any um any presentation before the uh oh what's the board called it approves subdivisions yeah so I'll have more to say about that on our agency of natural resources yeah that's part of it we'll have more to say I'm really hoping that we're actually at a point by next meeting that we can start negotiating with the town that's my hope um I haven't actually I haven't spoken with David in since um yeah since last week so um I don't know exactly where they are but I'm really hoping that we're we're very close to that anyway um okay so let's table that I think yes so do we want to list that one as pending since we yeah don't necessarily want to throw it into advisory because we do know that it needs to be acted upon pending is a great term thank you okay that's a great term thank you all right uh wait sorry I did you skipped four I skipped four didn't I yeah sorry so pen five is pending four okay four so I stated this can the public have a vote say in the in realignment of grades within buildings is that is that our intent let me know charity no because it's not in within buildings I don't think we want to mess around with that you know Stockbridge has had a huge success with being able to realign what grades are in what rooms and it's based on like head counts it's it's not within the buildings that the individual administration needs to maintain that capability it's the alignment within the two campuses as a whole moving like I know there have been suggestions to move all third fourth and fifth graders to one building that's what we want to have discussed and considered not being able to do that just on a whim so I changed I changed within which I didn't mean to put to between buildings is that can the public have a vote say in realignment of grades between buildings does that cover what we're trying to say I like that better what charity I meant to follow up with you about that are you saying you don't want to code mingle students or no no not at all okay you mean so my intention with asking for this to be considered was not when it comes to events or specials or anything like that it became it was directly in regards to the concern over the suggestion that has come up a few different times about moving all of pre-k12 to the Rochester facility so that stock bridge is only three four five six and I totally made that scenario up as an example so please no one think that that's an option that's going to happen just for example purposes my the the concern that's been brought to me by people and I myself have is there are geographic constraints with that families that have more than one kid in more than one grade you know the the simple fact that the language of this merger originally says that it's a pre-k through six and I think we've all seen that there's very strong desire for each town to keep its schools within it and I just don't think that it should be taken lightly and at only board discretion that without community involvement that we on a whim decide okay next year we're going to move everything to Rochester under fifth grade and everything to stock bridge below or you know any scenario like that I really think we need to have language in there that there's public input and like I said earlier in the meeting I'm not saying that the board lose its ability to suggest and make management calls on that I just think there needs it needs to be done in a way so it's not happening on a whim without community involvement so I mean I definitely see this in an advisory section because there's a whole lot that would need to be talked about with it well I think if that was the case there would be plenty of community involvement but let me rephrase that positive community involvement well there you go community reaction I think the term I think the term here again is mechanism is that we we want a transparent mechanism yes how this happens so that people feel secure that it's not going to happen you know overnight yeah um and that that's why I think this is this one is one that you know we can't act on this one immediately this one has to go into an advisory capacity to be looked at how do we adequately consider this one for modification that's just my oh there's no I mean you know well with some of the budget some of the budgetary constraints we're you know gonna be facing with this budget we're gonna have to a lot of things a lot of things are gonna come on the table I'm sure that's just the niche nature of it and better that we transparent mechanism that people have a say in it like we're doing here tonight like this way um transparent mechanism okay advisory open meeting laws give you that mechanism it's just well I think I think what charity's looking for what I'm hearing is is something a little more forceful than that a little more having to go to the people to get you know I mean to vote on it is you know I I don't think that's totally unreasonable for such a dramatic change it's definitely not unreasonable I'm just saying that uh the transparency part is the key and that was part of that 46 uh things that we wanted to do well I think I think the um uh it's advisory and I think it's something we should also look at again because I think it's the kind of thing that if people feel strongly about maybe it is amended that that's such a significant change I mean it's the same thing as closing us it feels like of the same level as closing a school to realign a school so big maybe that is something that should be voted on and maybe that is an amendment but I don't think we're there yet with this one um is that what Justine and charity do would you agree with that statement yes I would and I agree that you just said it there's verbiage when it comes to closing a school and I see this one is closely related to that same concept and yeah I that's why I just feel strongly we need to put this one in for more advisement um uh I I feel like this might be number two in priority what do people feel about that well it's certainly an easy one to write in and you know it makes sense to do it it it I I'd agree with that I mean it's not a complicated issue if we if that's written into the article well I mean you know any any time you amend anything this significant it's a big deal because it's got to go through a whole layers as I was explaining you know it's there's there's a series of checks and balances here we're advising the board considers and then the voters take action on on articles so but I I feel like this is um um a pretty big one to put in there and I would put it above a coded budget myself um well Justine how do you feel I think it's a number two or number three I think this is goes above coded budget in my opinion because of the you know the identity topic between the schools I agree that it it strongly affects the identity of each school so the uh security of having something in there that would prevent anything from being uprooted drastically I think um would greatly benefit each town in each school's identity we this this I think this this sounds like maybe oh charity sorry let me get your your opinion uh number two for us on this on the advisory list so I guess that's my question is or can I make a suggestion that we have a a ranking of the advisory items and a ranking of the act items because I think you should put those into two separate columns and rank them within their column appropriately sorry that's the analytical part of me coming out nope um good let me start a new once this board gets that high school off the plate you guys can actually start doing something with education huh I know all right so advisory number one okay and so advisory would also be budget budget coded or tie vote but we I think we have them as two three so that'd be um school a class alignment within across campuses is one uh budget coded is two and how to break a tie vote is three right now in our advisory list I would move budget down because I think in all reality that's already being addressed in its own respect by jamie canarney and the sites it's just a matter of getting all the parties that be in alignment so that to me is probably going to be the least important to worry about at this point based on the items on this list redoing our list and making it um so we haven't all right this is our action list at the top let me do we want then charity would feel good to have a pending list yes probably so actions list advisory list I mean and we also we may decide that you know we may you know we'll afterwards we'll talk about this after we get this whole list done of what we how we want how we want to present this you know I mean do we want to read everything we we came up with but say boom this is our this is what we want action on because almost all of these things are things that I didn't know about hadn't conceived of and are certainly worth being aware of if not taking action on that's how I feel as the board as a board as a board member okay so actions list and then pending list so Ethan as we're doing this so that we don't forget one I think you would say you added number nine which is article 11 uh if we want clarification of its validity yep in my mind that's something we need to do ASAP so I don't know where we want to put that on which list let's let's let's get there let's get there okay and just keep to our our process is going pretty well right now and I think um we're getting there pretty closely um all right then put that in the pending list okay uh and Justine I can I'll send you this once I've finished this draft I'll send you this and this can be included in the minutes um but but okay so I sent you Joanne's um explanation of this and I was um I was a little after I after the meeting it you know it's made sense to me and then it didn't make all right just wasn't sure and then she says I believe I was using it as an example a stock bridge will always be outvoted wouldn't it be more fair to use a percentage vote in each town instead of always throwing all votes into one hat 51 percent of raw stock bridge voted yes then stock bridge gets one vote yes 51 percent of Rochester voted yes then they get one vote yes a more fair way is 65 percent yes vote in one town would win over a 55 no vote in the other um I just and she says I just don't understand how the state ever thought of that joining different populated towns would ever seem equitable for the smaller town if you look across the state many smaller towns are attempting to separate from their perspective merge districts so what do we want to do with this one that's the one that you need to get a second opinion on yeah I agree with Tim because I understand the concept and of course being from the smaller town I understand the reasoning behind the desire for it what I have no concept of is the legal basis of doing something like this so I think for this one I would love to get some legal opinion that has knowledge of like how how this could even play into something and possibly explanation of is it even doable I don't want to I don't want to say yes or no I I want more help from people who are more knowledgeable in the subject um then that sounds that sounds pending to me pending pending with legal um legal advisory right because we we were told that early on that you couldn't split votes like that by percentage and I just think that would be clean if we got a second opinion on that from somebody that wasn't involved in writing the original criticals I I would say that the the the real thing is to address is to bring up the problem the problem is this inequity of a full vote in one town overriding a full vote in the other town no matter you know um and I I think that's you know while this is pending I still feel this is something we should bring up to the the board that this is an ongoing concern is that you know one town's vote can overwhelm by majority vote one town vote can overwhelm the other town always and I think that's the problem we want to bring to their attention the board's attention and then this is a suggestion a possible suggestion down the line once we have some more legal legal things so I would say maybe we put this in advisory that we have to be aware of this um and then say in pending that we want to get more legal information about this this idea anyway that we have an idea but we think we need to get more legal event does that sound good justine yes and and thank you justine don't worry and do your best you know I know after a long day at work this is like the last thing you you know do your best we'll we'll get it out there um Tim does that sound like a good idea we put this as an advisory of the problem and then we put the solution as pending legal advice uh yeah and keep in mind we're not the only district that's finding this issue being an issue um great uh we're hoping to get in our advisory list is this bigger than realignment of grades with between buildings budget coded is this a number one justine do you think this is number one in advisory um what is number one the problem the problem that the vote majority vote can always be weighted against the small town yeah I think so okay I think it is number one because it over over shadows everything that happens and it's the root of the unfairness that is felt charity I agree with justine yeah okay uh Tim yep okay number one uh number one an advisory is I'm not sure this is um uh check on this sentence I just wrote majority vote is always unfair to the smaller town and votes is it is that always appropriate yeah at this point certainly is what do you think justine I don't see how it could be fair if the populations are so different got you it's it's yeah as you say Tim this is something that should have been taken into consideration by the state you know if they're going to force different size towns together there's got to be a mechanism to make this equitable you know what the mechanism is stopper general chester tells them how to do it good so the problem is advisory one the um the solution can we vote by percentage in each town and poster majority and I'll add in Joanne's explanation of that and that's going into our pending list with legal advisory as to its um legality good okay we're now at um number three can there be a limit mechanism for limiting large bond items at one campus or other and this was a second thing Joanne brought up in the public comment at the end of our meeting how do we feel about this can you read that again well hold on a sec yes um can there be a limit or mechanism for limiting large by bond items at one campus or the other so the theory is that putting it to the voters is your mechanism for not letting it happen right so I don't know what other mechanism you would utilize I think it's already in place unless I'm not aware of the process unless I'm not properly aware of the process it's not as if the board itself I guess that's the question I have to clarify the the concept is it possible for the board itself without the vote of the two towns to enter into a new bond I think the bigger question with this one is because we're considering amending the mechanisms for voting is there a way we can prevent it until those mechanisms have been put in place in a more proper manner is that a better way to allow to ask this question Joanne I see your hand up Joanne I'll see your hand up let me just get through my committee members and then we'll get to you if that's okay yep um just Dean charity could you repeat what you just said well the last part the last the last part I think was the key yeah is there some way to prevent we're in so in reality we're in the process of trying to more proportionately align the voting system I think the real question is until we get a more proportionally aligned voting system in place for the two towns can we prevent a bond from being entered into because right now Rochester could totally vote what's going on even if if Stockbridge didn't want it to happen so the real I think in my mind the real question is until we get a properly proportionate voting mechanism in place can we prevent a bond from being entered into because it would be likely biased in one direction or possibly possibly yes possibly so we're looking to hold on that possibility until a more fair vote is in voting mechanism is in place is that what you mean is that can we prevent that from happening while we're in this limbo period of figuring out how to vote yeah well we can't afford a bond right now anyway hold on hold on hold on a second let's just let just Dean's responding and then we'll get to you and then we'll get to Joanne I think that's probably a legal question if we can control that at all I think that you're I think that we definitely it's definitely an issue and a concern it should it should not be either towns fear that this could happen under an unfair vote so that that's my opinion but I think it's a I don't whether we can put it on hold is a legal question that I can't answer I'm putting that in Tim well my I was just saying that we can't afford a bond right now because I'll put this over the threshold we're already catering on that so you know the RSUD has got to come up with how to operate two buildings and educate and give our kids opportunities okay uh Joanne thank you for your patience you wanted to speak on this as this was are you there Joanne oh did she I noticed she was having some internet issues oh Joanne are you there well um okay well let's let's if she jumps on well hold on she sent me a message it says it's not what I meant oh okay well it's not anything what we what we're taking it from is actually a very interesting point so uh um uh do you want to explain what you meant tell me what you meant and make the coffee I don't know if she's actually on yeah okay um well uh I we'll we'll get we'll hear from her eventually um um this sounds like at this point certainly advisory um and where is it in our priority list of advisory is it two or oh she's back Joanne you're there I think you guys muted me I didn't okay nope I don't have any it's not like zoom I have no control over that but can you hear me now yes oh okay next week I meant not have a big huge bond which I just feel one coming a big bond before the five years but I like what you're talking about better I was just afraid that you know we were going to get into this huge amount of money um that's then it's going then that would predicate whatever the future decisions are going to be that's all I meant for five for the first five years no big bond okay well I think I I think we've gone to somewhat the deeper issue yes I agree writing writing over and connected to your you know your more as we've gotten to the problem of your first suggestion there you go there you go thank you so much I won't waste any more of your time thank you never waste thank you thank you um okay so um it feels like it's definitely not a number one it feels to me number one the problem majority vote is still number one for me in the advisory list um is this I don't I I don't know I feel like the public having to say a realignment of grades is probably still number two for me an advisory list um what so I'm thinking three I'm thinking a three for this but what are we what's the other justine what do you how do you feel where does it go I agree with your order okay judge charity agrees with that tim yep okay so I've cut it it's going in advisory that didn't go right sorry just a technical there we go okay good all right and we're now to do all right can the conditions of the merger that were mentioned I don't know a number of this because my numbers keep getting changed as I'm doing up the list now I think this is eight can the conditions of the merger that were mentioned in the planning period but not voted on be reviewed to see if there are important elements to reintroduce to the agreements what's our I think I know charity you and I have spoken about how this is a sort of a longer term process of review yeah I was just going to say I think this is something we need to put into advisory but on a more I'm going to kind of go on a whim here I think it needs to be done on a longer term continual expectation and one of the things I wrote down for my notes to discuss within all of this is that there be a continued some mechanism to continually evaluate on a routine basis the success of the merger but also the success of the articles themselves so two different exercises that could be done simultaneously on a continued basis and that might be you you say that again please just what you said yeah you guys I don't do repeats very well I know I know but it was too that's that's very key so well I get it one it's a set of credits just like I'm on the committee to to um oh I can't think of the word but look at Jamie and his progress and how he's right so it's intended that we set up a series of criteria evaluation process evaluation process thank you and I think coming up with the right questions well and there's and I think those questions will change over time as things change but I think there's two parts to it evaluate the merger itself and evaluate the articles themselves because as times change I mean you know you can't predict 100 percent and I would never even want to try what direction education is going to go in you know so if the state the federal government private sector do things to alter the standard basis of education and what our parameters are you may need to look at the articles to say oh wait this worked back in 1995 and it worked in 2020 but now in 2025 they've thrown us for a loop and we need to rethink some pieces of the puzzle if we're doing an evaluation every three years I'm just going to throw that out as a an option totally made that number up um then you're at least being forced as a board to say we know this evaluation is coming up we need to start six months ahead of time so that we have all of our ducks in a row to start getting the questions from the public from the teachers from the administration from past students um so I would kind of turn this number eight into that evaluation process and um you know maybe this this subcommittee becomes a different subcommittee once we've gotten through this initial process that is a long-term subcommittee of the rsud board I maybe need to take a little piece off the full board well um uh I mean it gives me an extra meeting you know but uh and justine too but no that's uh I think of this as essential work um because as I've been on the board I don't know how long two years now three years I can't remember exactly um it's like flags have been waved in the in the horizon and we didn't know what they meant and and it feels like now you know we're looking at this stuff when we're looking at the articles agreement and we're asking questions about them that we have not asked before because we didn't know to it wasn't and I really want to emphasize it wasn't because of uh any intentional um it's just we didn't get it we didn't understand that there's a mechanism and that this is the structure and that you look at them and that like the constitution and the bill of rights there is a process with checks and balances in it of how you amend how something works the mechanism and uh I I I welcome it I welcome this idea I think this is I I think one of the best things we can do is turn what is presented to us by various people as the problem and turn it into the solution that we offer the board and I think that's where we really can do our best work is that we say here's a solution here's something that's going to make your job clearer and the administrator's job is clearer um if you do this and I think this is an excellent idea um so let me I wrote it down I I don't think I personally don't think it should be um uh every three years I think it should be ongoing just because I as a board chairman and when someone else is chairman they'll feel differently maybe about this but I like being crotted sorry I'm talking a lot charity no I I just think that there should be some sort of timeline given that will be a report or an open forum specifically for this subject matter would happen on a specified timeline so that the public is aware that this is a checks and balance that's going to be put in place at a minimum of no less than three years or five years or two years whatever is decided by the board but I agree this the work that this committee is doing there's no reason that this work can't continue on a continual basis but that reporting back to and getting specific input for that purpose like I said it's a checks and balance yes not also written into act 46 that is supposed to be part of what happens so people shouldn't be upset that's been three years since this has been reviewed and uh you know if we do it fairly and accurately then I think that the two towns can do it okay um so this is in a oh sorry justine didn't get you um yes this actually piggybacks really nicely on two things one I kept bringing up how closely will we look at the presentation that was presented to the board of education because I felt like that was in the past and how much are we going to dig up in the past to try to stick into this thing that should have been um and in addition to a conversations I've had with community members asking what do we want going forward the times have changed since this merger we're in the middle of a pandemic where schooling looks very different at the moment right now and I think that while folks were concerned with a variety of certain things in moving forward with the merger one of those things is the opportunity for improvement and change and what I think has been lacking is exactly what this committee is doing and it's allowing a significant amount of public input and working with the community to try to fix these problems so the ongoing and the future uh reevaluation I am very much supportive well and after Dina's comment that the presentation to the BOE uh was just a waste of time and we were voting on the articles I wasn't even going to bring up that proposal to the BOE a lot of things have changed since then so you know the RSUD board is new we're hearing things from the community the this committee so uh I'm I don't have any problem with hearing from people from Stockbridge I've got friends in Stockbridge that have been there for years so and I've got friends from Rochester my purpose for being on this committee and I told Ethan this uh from when he asked me to be I didn't go soliciting this to be on the committee but when Ethan asked me I said I better either shut up or get on it I think that these two schools can give our students good opportunities maybe not better but certainly more opportunities and uh I also said that the very first budget that came out had absolutely no transportation put in that budget to do that so we need to put the RSUD board really needs to consider putting uh transportation in this new budget and start uh cross commuting between the two schools okay I'm just writing this up and that doesn't need to be anything to do with articles in agreement this just needs to be common sense okay um so here's what I put um to set in process a regular evaluation of merger and evaluation of the articles that creates standards and questions and has a report due to the public on a regular basis one year three years etc does that sound like what we're talking about Justine yep Jerry Tim yeah I I agree with you it's an ongoing process yeah um advisory and priority I think this is advisory correct charity advisory I'm per I'm stuck on that part um because I think yes it's advisory but I think it in my opinion and I'm speaking only on my own behalf it's advisory with a side of you need to do this I think wait so it's an action item we're we're I think so but it's not an action item that actually needs to be put into the articles I think it's an action item that we're requesting the board take on effective immediately since hello this committee already exists and for lack of a better way of saying it and I'm sorry if I offend anyone we've already started doing it so why would we squash it now it's it's it's sort of um instituting but I think the key is as you said is the report is saying that there will be a report and I I don't know I the way we're working you know that there's you know with a mistrust level I think it needs to be almost yearly at this point um I think that's what we're doing I think we're giving them a report on the merger and on well I don't know if we're giving a report on the merger because I think that actually somewhat comes from the administration what we might come up for the administration is the standards by how we measure whether it's successful or not is that just test scores or is it as Tim's talking about cross campus interaction is it you know of course covid's going on so that's a very different thing but um yeah this is something needs to be talked about okay so um action item justine do you feel like it's an action item not an amendment but an action item yeah I don't think it's an amendment I was thinking advisory because I don't think it should be in the articles necessarily but I agree with charity I think it should be ongoing um because otherwise we're going to keep revisiting these times where people may be unhappy for for a while and it's important to kind of keep it fluid so the community members are working as a community Tim what's your thought um I mean we're taking it in as an action item um not an amendment all not all action items are amendments action items are we strongly recommend you do this right I agree with that I mean the article should be kept to like the amount that you have maybe one or two more like the original amendments were and then they were dropped but um I think that we need to discuss the advisory in the pending's before you know we're done with making the articles of agreement yes yep okay so in that case I'm going to I'm going to put um I'm going to put in the conditions of the merger that were mentioned in the planning period but not voted on be reviewed I like how we're getting to the root of things we've got sort of a symptom or something like that up here and we're getting to sort of the root issue but I'm going to put that in pending that that description of looking at the initial articles or the initial meetings and the 706 stuff I think that's something we should do down the road so that would be pending in my mind does that sound good and then if people get happy we don't even have to go back and visit that pending that's the way well we want everybody to be happy well we do actually right if people are happy the two uh buildings survive yep oh come on now so then Ethan do you have a new number to call this the what I just explained I don't even know what to call it well I'm evaluation committee or whatever evaluation committee set in process a regular evaluation a merger and valuation of articles committee and that may be two committees because I think they're two big jobs um and I'm going to put that in parentheses and so on my list that's now number two on our action list well well this committee is supposed to be working on the articles so yeah we know we're discussing how to get to the articles without getting too far down that rabbit hole so that we can give RSUD some information of what we're getting yeah well no I think I um yes good okay whoops I just have to say good night to my son I'll be right back thank you all right so we're now at um what is now my number three what was number nine and this is article 11 is confusing and I would even say actually it's contradictory Ethan can we wait and make sure Justine and Tim are back on with us oh sorry they took a break okay got you yep I think they did I'm glad but it's Tim you're there Justine I don't think Justine is yet yep let's let's let's take a moment then just for the public it's on just so we will as soon as we finish this first go through of everything then we'll get your public comment and then we're going to go back to sort of finalize anything we've got so um public comment will be coming up shortly right I'll be back in just a minute I heard muted myself Tim are you there you're still there yeah okay good all right looks like we're all here again let's keep going um so article 11 is confusing contradictory what do we want to do with this is this an amendment huh I think we need a legal answer on that I know we've gotten an understanding from Dina so we know that her perception of this or I'm assuming her perception based on her language in her email is that this has is that the boe presentation and the document which was considered the plan don't have any validity it's the articles that have validity I strongly suggest and hopefully Justine agrees with me that we get another legal opinion on that because we're saying that an item that was written in and voted on in the articles now no longer has any validity but Dina gave us language in her email that anything voted on in the articles is what's valid and this is written into the articles so it's if you want to call it a double-edged sword or a circle or what it's a concept that's perplexing to me because I guess my question is can we get legal clarification of whether or not we have to do something with language to void this or do we just leave it alone is it going to fix itself with what we've proposed I you know I'm not discrediting Dina at all but I think maybe we need another opinion you know well go ahead Justine I before we decide to get another opinion I I think we should bring article 11 to Dina's attention specifically with this in mind because I think what we were asking was a very general question and it was what document do we look at as as law and she said the the document that is law is this it wasn't but it also kind of says that we should look at this other stuff what do you want to say about that so I think always there's plenty of legal opinions but I don't think we actually address that specifically with her Tim well my feeling is that a second opinion is at this point won't hurt and it's not going to cost anymore to get a second opinion than it is to keep getting the circle so you know this is a new issue with the lawyer at this point we've been we've been going down this road now for four or five years before this marriage even started so if we're going to do it I think it's time to do it and get a second opinion um I'm gonna side with Justine I think if I just and I'm willing to pursue both avenues I certainly have no problem with that um I'm also thinking about um but yeah I think we put about I think this is a biggie this feels like a biggie to me um because it's a clear contradiction um uh that this is what that we voted on is the law but this says yeah it's just a it's a really nasty little contradiction that um that we need lawyers on and let's get two opinions about it I don't have any problem getting two opinions on it I think it's big enough snafu that it needs to or it certainly looks like that Justine I don't have a problem getting two opinions on it but I just wanted to clarify that I don't think we actually asked the right question I I would agree with you I would agree that I think article 11 was never mentioned in our and I never I'd even noticed it before so this is why I'm really glad to have some sharp readers and a legal mind here yes jordy um I do agree with Justine I don't think we asked the right question or the right series of questions um but I think this is important enough that we need to make sure we've got absolutely clear understanding of is this going to hold everything up or not and if if we are going to run into a roadblock because of that one article um so I'm of the opinion it's worth getting another opinion on it um but like I said that's not to discredit dina because I think we didn't ask the right questions just as Justine stated I mean you're right it's just it's a circle it's a circle the problem it's like even trying to write it down what the question is um it's like all you know all things are I never tell a lie that's a lie or something like that um okay um so um I think I'm going to put this number one in pending in other words we need to know more about this before we can really decide what what we're advising not that pending is not pending is active means we got to do stuff on it how do you feel does it need to be action item uh what do we feel about this I think this is an action item it really relates back to both the the voting and the um the way the classrooms are set up you know all of that boe stuff that we were confused about whether we were looking at there's more um detail in that that that could apply if we were to interpret article 11 in the way we're interpreting it tonight so action item from Justine charity yeah I agree with Justine and I'm gonna go as far out on limb as I can and that I almost think this is very close to being our number one because if we've interpreted this in the wrong context all the work we've done on anything else just came to a standstill yep so I think we it's like uh can we have two things at number one simultaneously we need to get this legal clarification in order to know that number one actually is number one well we'll get after the public comment I think we'll get to okay be realistic what are the things we really want to take up the board's time with and I think that's what that's what after the public comment will be about and I think we'll be you know pretty hard-nosed about it and I think we're I think we're doing a really good job of prioritizing and we'll figure out how we go forward Tim how do you feel is this action item it definitely is action item if we're getting two different answers and if you're getting information about the one that is number one right now at four o'clock this afternoon when we've got a meeting at six thirty uh I've got an issue with that too well that's personally my fault um sort of relaxing over the Christmas break um and no no no no no Ethan we brought that up uh on the whatever day it was 21st so it's should have been a surprise and you know so you're right so this is not your fault and we need more than an opinion we need to know exactly what is law and what isn't so if that means getting Donna Lucia Savage on the phone let's do it as she says she's the she is the advisor she can give advice to us but she is not our true legal counsel at this moment um she wrote the damn bell no that's fine I just um uh I I'm willing I'll I'll ask all three I'll ask I'd be sort of wonderful actually in some ways to ask all three see how they come back to us um because it's it's a it's a mind-bending contradiction to me um all right so um yeah definitely above set and process a regular evaluation of merger that the the evaluations and one a one b how about that it's gonna let me do this okay good I think we're ready to here's some public comment anything can I add one more yep what's up um so one other one that I've hinted at a few different times is that and I don't know the best way to do it but I think it definitely should go on our advisory list is um the language that's in the articles right now does not state that we need to continue having a proposed budget for the voters that is under the per pupil threshold and I think we need to consider asking the board to amend that so that we do present only a budget that stays under the threshold that's advisory 101 right there what do you mean to I mean we shouldn't be going over the threshold with uh under 200 kids at 4.3 million bucks you know we should be somewhere down around 3.8 3.7 okay it just goes back to the concept of fiscal responsibility good just justine what's your I haven't heard from you on this I agree this topic uh comes up has come up more than once um in various different situations regarding the the the threshold and I think um it's it's worth bringing to the board as a as an item to um include I don't know are you charity are you talking about including it in like adding it as an article in the merger that the budget will be proposed as under the threshold I haven't I haven't written an amendment that board must propose only budgets that stay under the threshold I don't to answer to to answer justine's question I don't know that it's one that we have to address with an immediate amendment I think that there's been language from Jamie Kanarney that went out SU wide in a recent letter just right after the the break ended that reflected the 9% increase that the governor's expecting um and that fiscal responsibility is going to be something he's striving for and really pushing hard um at the entire SU level as well as the governor pushed that information out to everybody and is expecting that within education across the board as with the state as a whole um so I don't know that we need to act on it and change that language right now that's why I think it's okay to put it in as an advisory item um where is it that brought it up at one of the actual regular school board meetings that I believe don't quote me but I think it was you that kicked it right back to Tara and Jamie that you wanted to see that and stay 2% under um so I think there's already steps being put in place there's enough um visual and um visual recognition that this is an issue that if we don't get language changed during town meeting for this one I don't think that's going to be detrimental because the concept is already out there in enough ears and minds as it is where is this on our priority list of advisories I have right um you know top number one advisory right now majority vote um number two is can public have votes say in a realignment of grades between buildings vote three can there be a limit mechanism for limiting large bond items number four is the budget being coded number five how does a tie vote get broken um I would say it's a three two or three for me I don't know I'm I'm open for that though uh yeah two or three and then if you're one of your regular board meetings you segue into any of these then you know you can bring them up at that time well we'll we'll talk about ways we can we can give them an advisory without necessarily taking up their time talking about them I don't know this is as I say after public comment we'll talk about this because I think all of these things are things I think the board should see they should see our list our whole list whether we actually talk about all these items or not is another question um uh and and discuss maybe it's a matter of what they have questions on um just Dean how do you feel about priorities here is this a two three for you on advisory yeah I feel the same as you Ethan I I I'm in line with what you okay ready yeah I'm I'm fine with that and keep in mind also as Dina has stated before and I think we in this group have stated is that there are pieces of this puzzle that even though we present it to the board in the advisory column it doesn't mean that they have to do an amendment to the articles yeah they can also just on a they can also adopt that as a board this is going to be their standing process we don't necessarily have to change an article for it to become the status quo got you no I I we we we have a a mission which I realized the other day I really need to be more fluid with because it's um it's sort of our vision statement this is our the board's job is to be the vision and then the administration and the su to sort of act on that vision and um this this could certainly be part of our um our articles of that you know our our agreement of that good um anything else before I turn it over to some public comment charity you good to go good just Dean Tim you good to move on to public comment yeah thank you all right I got my list up here get my pad uh first on the list is Janet Whitaker do you have any comments for us tonight um my only comment is that um I'm really appreciative of what you're doing to to try to have it so that we don't dissolve the merger only because there are really a lot of pros to the current situation and um as a Stockbridge resident I just appreciate that you're working so hard and sitting in on the meetings makes me appreciate how hard you're working thank you thank you Janet much appreciate it Joanne Mills from Stockbridge do you have a further comment oops shoot I swear I'm not remitting you I don't know what's are you there I'm sorry I'm sorry something technical is happening with you um please feel free to cut in um once you get back on and we'll certainly come back to you after we've moved on Karen Rubin no I'm all set I just appreciate the due diligence that you guys are um doing to to see this through thank you so very much great thank you Karen uh and then I have one fourth up Joanne you back can you speak I'm sorry I don't know what's happening for you so no it's not do you want to try calling in to join by phone it's four one three eight two five nine six one four it's a long pin but I can give it to you right now seven two six four two three five nine seven it's on the agenda bottom of the agenda let's see if we got you nope she left okay uh let me move on here uh four four three star star 15 please identify yourself in your town can you hear me yes this is Rob Gardner hi Rob so I had a couple of points I'll make and try to be brief so as far as as far as I can see you can um you guys are asking to change legal voted on agreements based on what sounds to me like a lot of suspicions fears hypotheticals what if this happens what if that's that happens and resentments these aren't actionable facts subjective feelings are not facts after all the Rochester voters could come up with a whole list of hypotheticals and peers based on these hypothetical and peers and what them so I really question the effectiveness of your process secondly the sacrilege folks have already made their decision to pursue the merger uh demurger through the petition and the intent to vote on or whatnot so it seems to me there's some considerable bad faith in trying to amend the merger agreements under the threat of the demurger vote uh you know it just seems unreasonable to me it seems to me that you should cease the process or take everything into a advisement the work you've done into advisement until after the stock bridge and maybe Rochester votes on the demurger and then you can have a meaningful conversation about the process the agreements with the student centered uh uh goals seeking the best academic and financial outcomes and not just listening to complaints the complaints have to be heard and taken seriously but they should be specific and actionable and based on facts and not just personal feelings about something finally uh since this is a combined board and decisions are made by stock bridge board members that affect Rochester students Rochester voters should be able to be should be part of the process of electing those board members and vice versa this is probably why the lawyer had a problem with that suggestion in the uh first place and that's all I have to say tonight thanks for all the work you're doing thank you Rob thank you Rob can you hear me now uh yes I can Joanne oh great thank you all right well I I'm sorry I just missed um Rob I'm sure it was interesting um so my only concern and I thank you very much because I think you're working so hard my only concern is the difference between action and advisory um I just hope that some of the things that we that um I just don't want it to be watered down and some of the advisory items maybe should be action but I'm sure you'll figure it out and you'll know exactly what to do because um so far I've been very impressed it's just some of the you know if you if you if you say to your kid well you may go outside it's different than you must go outside and I just hope that it's just not watered down that's all um but so far so good thank you so much that's all very good um we're now at 802 star star three eight you're please identify yourself hi it's Keith over at Stockbridge hi Keith sorry I missed your last meeting uh first uh Merry Christmas happy new year to all thank you I think um Rob Gardner's comments were uh excellent I think that the focus needs to be as to whether or not this merger is going to stay in place before we um go overboard on amending the documents uh to amend a legal document is not easy as Rob uh as Robert pointed out um I was a little bit more focused on the uh articles of the merger than I was on some of the topics that were touched upon by your committee because I thought the committee was focusing on how the merger document and the articles were going to be amended so I'm really not prepared to discuss some of the issues um I guess my questions are um one of the concerns I think it was at the top of your list is realignment um when I looked at the document that was ratified or voted on um in Stockbridge you stated uh I think October 22nd 17th it has a stamp on it so I'm hoping that's the proper uh set of articles that I'm looking at would that be correct I don't know off the top of my head some yes that's right thank you okay thank you so if the document was drafted I'm not I don't know what the intent intent was and I'm sure none of you do because I don't think any of you are involved in drafting the document but some of the conditions have like article 4a when it talks about realignment um it's kind of unusual that this document was drafted and it says that you know during the first year that the district is fully operational the districts will operate elementary school grades pk through six in each community um 4b talks about the budget which you guys touched upon and it says during the first year or during the 2018-19 shall not exceed spending thresholds it didn't the language didn't say that once this district is formed each community will have pk 6 it was like the document was drafted with looking into the future and saying here's what we see happening because it limited itself to the first year and I think those articles need to be addressed because those are concerns that you have um the other thing is and maybe you can answer Ethan who authorizes a bond vote oh and I I'm not an expert at that but I believe it's the board has to put out um no we we solicit a um what's it a something like a peep not a peepee but something like that a proposal and then we uh we've I believe the board then votes on it uh to put it out to bid and then it goes to a vote um but I'm not I'm not I'm not expert on that at all Keith so I really shouldn't be speaking to me okay but I can find out okay but if the board has the authority to uh issue a a bond vote why can't the board vote to put a moratorium on bonds until certain uh issues are addressed to the uh satisfaction of both the board and the communities it seems that it would be under their control to do such a thing and finally um when I was looking at the comments in this first article um I guess seven and you know 11 and the whole boe thing um does the boa keep records of what they approved and authorized for our merger I don't know okay because it was disturbing to me that the attorneys answered says the articles of agreement which were voted on and approved by the the electorate electorate are the legal documents of the merger whatever was presented to the agency of education is irrelevant so in other words the way I interpret that is somebody could go before the boe make this presentation boe says you know what you guys have your act together that sounds great then that same group can go out and say well you know what here's what we're going to put it out for vote so what impact does the boe have it sounds like it's just uh you know a paper tiger because they'll do something and there's no mechanism they don't enforce anything they don't look at anything they just say our hands we're done we voted we're finished so I was curious so as a community member can I go to the boe and say hey guys look at these emails look at these responses what what you know what does the boe do it's a good question I'm writing it down because you know if if you know the boe approved one thing and then another thing is put out to vote the whole merger really should be dissolved just as a matter of course because it wasn't what was approved could I say something yeah justine just to interject for a moment there this is a question that I did pose to dina in the meeting or it's related to a question that I did pose to dina in the meeting in asking whether the board of education did see our actual warned articles that were to be voted on as well as what was presented and my understanding of her response was the board of education did see all of the previous presentation and the warn articles before they approved our merger so then I could actually go to the boe and petition to see these records because they should be a matter of public record because that would give me clarification and doesn't put anybody on the spot it has nothing to do with rochess has nothing to do stop bridge it's just that there seems this process seems to be flawed and you know I think it's important that we see what they voted on what they approved how it differed I mean this is really you know an issue I have with the boe more than the board I mean you know and now you're trying to rewrite a bunch of articles that you know with three years into this it's like reinventing the wheel it's almost easier to revoke and have a new merger than it is to do what you're doing you're trying to fix and and you know do patchwork to make this work which just is going to lead to more issues a year from now I don't see this committee running as patchwork okay hold on a second Tim I do think we have at just Dean I should have probably kept this in that I think it's important that we listen to comments take notes well Tim do you have something concise to say well yeah I kind of resent the statement that this is patchwork when this committee got together after the stop bridge let board approve to move forward with the unmerge so if I think that I don't have an any issue with stock bridge going forward with an unmerge because the dissolve takes two years new very voted today and it took them two years to get to that point so we don't have to rush this thing and there's no reason why stock bridge can't move forward with what they're doing if we make articles of agreement that work for everybody and we start running two buildings and educating our kids with that with better opportunities I think that over two years we can show that we can do it and there won't be any final vote in stock bridge if we fix this if we don't fix it both schools are going to be in big jeopardy okay Tim I hear what you're saying then then why why does the board want to have things to present so quickly at the next meeting we decided not to do that the only thing that we were going to present was the top one which was the equal voting and then we were then we were putting things into different columns which you you must understand that the advisory are issues that have been brought up okay I hear what you're saying but it was interesting that the number one item that you say with you're going to bring up there seem to be differing opinions as to whether or not that was even legal to do that is right I'm not according to our legal advice to our know that that same person Dina gave a different opinion and this should be firm clarification this is the third meeting of this committee we've had well and I and I told her we've had by email she's confirmed that it is right and by in person at the last meeting she confirmed it was right so okay so we have the legal right to do that is what you're saying on the record that's on the record that's what I'm taking and don't forget about the series of checks and balances involved in this this is an advisory board that will present things to the full board which will make decisions about what they go forward they could say at this point with COVID and what we're dealing with and budget issues this is not the time to bring up any of these issues and even if they do there's still the voters who have to choose one way or another about these issues there are all sorts of checks and balances to what we're doing and I believe that that's an important part of this process so what we suggest and what we list really doesn't you know it's all very good and I hear Joanne's comment that it's important that things don't get left out but you know this is an advisory board we are giving advice we are thinking of talking and thinking about issues and getting legal advice and then we're advising our board good are you all done Keith uh yeah I'm done okay thank you very much um 802 star star 91 please do you have any comments could you identify I'm sorry I'm not hearing you yeah I'm not hearing you okay I'm I'm sorry I'm not I'm not able to make out what you're saying 802 can you hear me now ah yes now I can yes thank you okay hi even at Caitlyn McKenzie how are you tonight hi Caitlyn thank you good so I know I'm usually the negative and green antsy um about this but I just want to say you guys are doing a fantastic job going through listening to your debates watching videos of previous meetings um I wish the school board worked as quickly and precisely as you guys did on issues I feel they push things off a lot but you guys are doing a really fantastic job about pulling these articles apart um I do want to very much disagree with with Robin Keith I want to reiterate like what Tim said dissolving and redoing the articles are two they're lengthy processes they're and they're two very separate processes Tim's right it's going to take time to fix the merger but it's also going to take time to dissolve um and he's right in the fact that if things get fixed if things are are fair I'm sure a lot of people in Stockbridge would be comfortable with staying in the merge if things were fair if we kept our K-6 school if we were able to to be able to vote equally you know a lot of the things that you brought up if those things get fixed I feel that the merge could work um so I just wanted to say that now my other two comments on the actual article suggestions um is has it been brought up or is it being considered to recommend to pay a tuition to another school if grades are moved um or if a school one of the schools obviously it would be Stockbridge because we're smaller and we can't house all the kids um if Stockbridge were to close would it be an option to um have tuition paid or could it be in in the articles that it would be an automatic dissolution um since the board is in charge of moving grades and such I think looking at paying tuition for those who are affected by either a school closure or moved grade I think that should be part of it and for bonds I think if there's going to be a large bond for example if you need to do a bond for a sprinkler repair or a new new something I think there should be a time limit on so each school should get the same treatment if there's a bond that's going to cover one major facility either upgrade or change then you don't necessarily have to spend the exact amount but say I don't know Rochester the roof's there they may need a new roof sometime in the future and maybe Stockbridge needs a roof repaired so get Rochester a new roof this year and then within x amount of time either Stockbridge gets their roof repaired or a roof a new roof so it's even so it's not we just take out this huge bond or this huge amount of money and spend it on one school there needs to be a plan to keep both schools maintained and updated and I think that may be all I have oh so another reason why things are coming up why the articles are coming up now just to state of Rob and Keith is that they they do need to be voted on they need to be presented at town meeting and that only happens once a year so it's really important for that to occur and that's why there's a push for it now I think that's kind of it great thank you so much Caleb much appreciation okay okay we're gonna go back um it's our time here oh we're going along one here well this is our as it says our last one thank you all for your comments um notes have been taken for sure um and and and heard I mean I I do hear I really do hear all the comments both pro what we're doing here and and challenging what we're doing here my general response is this is the best solution I had when it was suggested to me and so I'm going to try it and it may not work and it may be wrong headed but it's the best solution I've got in front of me and as the board chairman um I'm going to follow that so time will tell uh who's right and who's wrong but I I certainly think it's a worthwhile thing to try and we'll see but I also take an advisement some of your some of your reasons for what we're doing okay um I'd love to wrap this up but I don't want to do it before we're we feel clear I think you know we've got I don't really want to have another meeting next Monday but um that would be the way to cut it short to really sort of sit with this get some more feedback and but I I think you know we've got a lot to present and I just want to I don't think we should curtail our presentation because the board is busy I don't think that's ever a good reason I think we have it our our stuff is as important um it goes to the heart of this whole you know this whole district existing but I'd like to sort of hear your take uh Tim justine charity on how you think we should present this who wants to go first uh charity um you know I think we've come up with a list of what we see as action items advisory items and pending items I think if we build a spreadsheet which I think you've been doing as we go um if we present that with clear concise language to explain each of those items and where we feel we're at with it and our reasoning behind it then I think we don't really I think we're at that point where we've got as much legal understanding as we can for the items that we know we have outstanding questions on that with what we've got we're ready to present this to the full board with the understanding that there are pieces of the puzzle that still need clarification and some of those are some of our big ticket items in order to make other big ticket items attainable um I guess that's where I'm at um I don't think that's the end what we're doing no I think we just transitioned into a different phase of now we need to be available to answer questions to the full board and make sure we all stay on the same page the bottom line with all of this is this is a subcommittee and it was our task you know the goal I originally set out for this group to do was to present options to the board and I think we're at that point and all we can actually do is present it to the board and it's in the board's hands we just have to present it as clearly as we can to make them understand where we're coming from and the value of what we're presenting to them so just just a pure technical thing I'm hearing that you think we should basically read our list to them and then answer questions and that like number one on the action list should probably have the wording of the amendment as we read it if we get clarification on that in time to present it to them I know we're up against a timeline because that meeting is what next Tuesday yes and we're already at Tuesday with Thursday Friday kind of being probably a wash so but I don't want to see us wait longer because we know that there's work that the board's going to have to do to get this ready to warn by the end of January if they if they decide to go ahead with that yes right exactly because bottom line it's it's the board's decision of if any all or none of this will move forward um but I think given time constraints like we need to make this as um what's the word I want to use uh what what's the word Tim fluid fluid uh no I was I want this to look as enticing as possible for them to agree to move forward with what we want to push to town meeting and and the future ones as well I want them to see the value of what this group is done and that we've got backing from all these community members who've been you know stating that you know this is this is a good start to fix this and fix the uh maybe too strong where the animosities and but you got to move forward to fix it and if we present them with all of this in the proper manner and they move it forward then it's step one and then we just keep stepping forward good justine I agree I was uh presenting the list I think our list is a lot more organized than we might think it is because we are in a rabbit hole so I think we've organized some very good key points that are straightforward I think maybe uh offering the draft of the amendment might be a little too soon I think we should get all of the advisement that we can first by approaching um dina with um article 11 and her interpretation and then going beyond that if that's what we're going to do um but I think that our list it is as well thought out and is going to be straightforward and easy to present it just in the form that it's in uh Tim yeah I did agree with that I'd present the list and uh you know I'm interested to see what the board has to say it's really up to uh the board if how this works out if they think that the original article of agreement and the presentation to the BOE were good for both towns then you know that's the sixth person decision to make and really we have nothing to say about it we can advise them that that's not necessarily what the majority of the people think I had some pretty good conversations with people in Rochester today and I'm not sure that um the definition of insanity comes to mind if you're going to listen to one person and keep saying the same thing in spite of a different outcome um well here's a here's a very practical question who should present this to the board me charity justine tim I believe it's a point of order issue I think because you are you or justine are board members I'm reaching out on the limb because again my experience is with private entity board and not public board but I believe there's a point of order issue that because the two of you are board members of the larger board it needs to be presented by one of the two of you and technically we probably were supposed to name one of the two of you as the chair of this subcommittee oh I think I took that okay so then I believe it is you that are whoever took that role you would have to submit that on behalf of the subcommittee correct well I I did um um oh no I didn't I was going to send Amy Welch my vice chair a message that I would certainly step down as the board chair during this presentation if that was the case if you want me to present it um uh so that she would be chairing you know that section of it um because I think that would be a little confusing for me to be the board chairman of the our said um um what do we if if do you want to do it justine though I mean that's somehow feels I talk a lot anyway so I'm going to be talking all night that um Tuesday night um I'm not sure that I I'm not sure not necessarily I would vote for you I feel like you're um you've been doing this great thing of mirroring back everything we say to to us like whoever whoever addresses something you kind of like flush it out and mirror it back and and I think that you've kind of flushed it all out already in a in a great way and I think probably you're most prepared to present because of that but I'm happy to do it from from what we have worked on already if you feel like that would be more effective no I'm really at the will of the board I mean I'm happy to present it it's certainly something I'm you know presenting is is something I'm very comfortable with I would want to make sure that we you know all signed off on the list and maybe the last thing we'll do tonight is just read through it one more time just to make sure we're all clear and get you know because commenting on it afterwards I never got a clear yes or no whether we could do that but I um I just think in general that's probably the best thing to do is to uh get it clear tonight um charity how do you feel about that do you care who presents I mean I'm fine with either of you presenting it um I do question I do is there anything wrong with it being typed up sent you know presented to the four of us and just giving our approval that we understand it I know for me seeing something is going to give me more of a chance to rattle off questions versus hearing you say it out loud let's um I see I think that the big issue is I understand the public meeting law and I can get confirmation from the jamie tomorrow or dina is the idea of discussion and the idea of discussion is what really has to happen in the public forum but the idea of us um editing a document um I don't know as I say I put out at questions out to two people and never got an answers back I could follow up more on that it would be really useful if over this break before next Tuesday the four of us could put our two cents in um looking at this document again um can we do we want to take the chance of assuming that that's okay as long as there isn't a lot of email discussion about it that we I'd rather not have email discussion about it let's do it let's do it in public and be transparent yeah okay yeah no I hear you I don't I don't just to clarify I wasn't saying that we don't read through it tonight I was just saying can we get a like a copy of it sent to us in the final in its final form as well absolutely what I'll what I'll read tonight and whatever we finish tonight I will send out to all of you um and then and I think that's that's uh good good way to go okay well um so thumbs up thumbs down I will present it yes yes Tim yes good okay I will recuse myself from the board chairman at that time we will do it all right so this is the hot topics article and I may I don't know if we we may want to change that title we'll see hot topics sounds a little like a disco down from the 70s um action item action item 1a change how representatives are nominated and elected amendment proposal uh i action item 1b article 11 is confusing is the worn document this was I don't have this written quite right is the worn document the legal document and does article 11 contradict that can we get legal clarification on this and again how you phrase that one is is one to maybe work on a little bit and then action item 2 set in process regular evaluation of merger and evaluation of articles committees to create standards and questions and has a report due to the public on a regular basis one year three year etc all right advisory number one problem majority vote is always unfair to the smaller town in votes I'd say votes twice transparent mechanism suggested number two can the public have a vote say in realignment of grades between buildings I don't understand what I have after that sorry but it says advisory number three amendment that board must propose only budgets to stay under the threshold number four can there be a limit mechanism for limiting large bond items at one campus or other before we get to a more equitable voting process in place can we prevent a one-sided large bond vote sorry I think I put them both in the wrong that should just equitable voting should be in action items correct yes number one or were you referring to the piece of the that where we want it we put I think we put it in that it needed legal advice about a weighted voting and the legalities around that oh that's right so that's right so the because we broke it up into two things there was a solution wait let me look at this again maybe word it as um weighted voting legal issues or legal capabilities or I don't know but maybe say weighted voting because it just sounds different than the the other voting issue okay I see what we're at now um you know what I'm gonna do I'm just gonna send this to you I'm gonna send what I have to you guys right now I think it's the only way to do this because otherwise it's just like my writing was fast and this may be the late one where we get this right or get this closer to what we want whoops sorry um okay okay it is sent hopefully we'll get it oh I see what it is now okay I um I had in before the what we were looking at before was can there be can there be a voting how do you vote on bonds and then it was before we get a more equitable voting process in place can we prevent more large one-sided bond votes that is a legal question um did you get it everybody get it charity yet Tim did you get it uh Ethan the document I got to eat from you just now is the same document you sent at the beginning of the meeting oh uh okay sorry let's save this uh save as yep that's why I didn't save it as thank you second second draft it'll have on it thank you uh technology we're in person this would be a dry race board just send it can you go but it's not the printer for me please we are a mile apart Ethan we could have walked it to each other quicker I know it's all downhill pretty much for me too I could have zoomed right down there I know that's the part that crazy you know the the internet you know it really could be going to Boston or DC or Seattle and then going to you the mile down the road yeah but I got it this time oh well that's good okay all right so this yeah this will be a late one let's let's um I just I just one change I just did is I just added in change how school board representatives are nominated and elected amendment proposal yeah let's see how that one goes yeah if that one goes smoothly let's go on to number two and not necessarily on next Tuesday night but let's see you how the full board is feeling about I just added in in one b article 11 is confusing and conflicting and and we're going to get legal clarification on that hopefully before next Tuesday I think our the number two is as I said it sometimes I was rewriting a little bit as I was reading to you all right problem majority vote is always unfair to the smaller town I think we can just say smaller town I'll probably you know I will do a little bit transparent mechanism okay then two can the public have votes say in realignment of grades between buildings get rid of it is advisory number three the amendment that board must propose only budgets to stay under the threshold before we get more equitable voting process in place can we prevent a one-sided large bond vote legal question then number five budget coded at the expense level to reveal accounting at each campus intent to reveal spending equity in real time at both campuses I'll take off advisory because it's in that now how does a tie vote get broken in school board votes advisory what if a board member is missing I ask a question on that one yep I don't know if this pertains to open like this type of board I know in private entity board any board member not able to be present can give their proxy vote to another board member as long as they write down what their vote is going to be as documented proof that the person isn't changing their vote I don't know if that's an option in this type of board I don't either but I will ask about it yeah sometimes you know you don't always know when the vote's gonna happen on a I mean sometimes with budget stuff like that on a pending list sorry we have uh two that didn't work I'm sorry there we go three I want to give me three come on there we go uh what are the consequences of property dispersal article in the high school transferred to town Rochester that's pending can we vote by percentages in each town as opposed to majority pending with legal advisory can the conditions of the merger that were mentioned in the planning period been up voted on be reviewed to see if they're important elements to the injures to the agreements good what do we think about this we we done I'm trying to figure out if we missed something because I have 11 noted on my original cheat sheet I was writing on but I don't have that many on here well we split some one two three four five six I actually have more well including pending and one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve I have including one a and one b should I read through them one more time make sure we got everything I think the one I'm missing is the bond one did we put on here anything about the bond item which was number seven uh yes it's before we get a more equitable voting process in place can we prevent a one-sided large bond vote number 400 advisory legal question after number three amendment that board must propose only budgets at standard the threshold and five the budget coded you might want to find out how the moratorium works that's not a bad idea it might be easier to do that for the time being and you know I don't know enough about moratoriums or how they even get handled but justine might be able to answer some of that it might be a question for the league of school boards go ahead justine if you have anything I don't I can't answer that right now but I mean especially uh with regards to um schooling okay so where are we do we feel charity how we how we doing yeah I think we just need to I I know this is what we can't do we can't have an outside set of eyes look at this and then reflect back to us what they think is or isn't explanatory so I think I guess I'm at the point where this is as close as we're going to get to giving the full board our thoughts of what we're what we've got and with every with all of us being present if they have any questions we can explain if it doesn't seem clear to them but I do I think we're at that point where we present and if they don't like it we figure out why you know and keep moving forward justine um I just scanned through my um draft minutes essentially my notes and I can't see anything else that is missing from this document I have one edit for one word in number three under advisory propose instead of proposes but other than that I am in agreement with charity I think this is a this is what we propose okay this is what we propose is yeah on the noses of toes is yes good Tim any comments I agree and then after your meeting next week you can let us know if you want to continue or whether you don't want to continue oh I mean personally already I think this should continue um I think I think we'll I think we'll get some marching orders from the board how they want to go forward um I think we may personally just thinking about communication I think I may need at least a second sentence for 1a um just because I think we need to say something about local representatives that the local town votes for its local representatives we have an amendment for you to look at something like that just so they have a little more idea of what we're talking about there um can we just put in intention is that each town will nominate and elect its own representation yep I agree with that I think that's what we should write yep nominate and elect there and then and then you're going to have to talk about how that works going forward after this year because it won't have to be an Australian ballot so that you can know between the two towns well I'm going to Australia um how I'm going to say how well I was going to say how voted how voted is concerned Australian ballot or not um there's you know there's a lot of issues with that obviously that we need to bring up to them but do we actually need to do that in this document can we just say yeah see see attached suggested language from Dina how do we feel about how do we feel about the idea of sending this out to the board before the meeting go ahead I think if we're in agreement when we before we end the meeting tonight of what this document's going to look like by all means send it out to them give them as much time as we can to let them look at it and present questions in advance so we can at least have an idea of do they have specific concerns they have specific questions and tell them get ready great yeah preparation is always it's also going to make things smoother faster I think if they're if they're on it as opposed to all this coming at them right at the beginning good um and then I just added the words um in the one a we have an amendment have an amendment proposal just so they know so change how school board representatives are nominated and elective we have an amendment proposal uh our intention intention but intervention our intention is that each town will nominate and elect their own representatives good okay so then article 11 is confusing and conflicting is the worn document the legal document and does article 11 contradict that can we get legal clarification on this I I think we should put something that this underscores the this underscores everything because it kind of does is what legal document or this underscores the legal basis for the merger is that I guess maybe I'm being too simple about it but is our question do the voted on articles stand alone if article 11 is removed because that's kind of the question do they voted on articles stand alone if article 11 is removed okay that would be a lot easier and if that was the case well I'm you know I don't know I have them feeling that there's something in there that's got to say the board approved this the you know the BOE approved this but yeah I mean it's pretty no brain I mean if I'm not a legal scholar but I can look at that now that you pointed to me and it's like this is really confusing yeah okay good I put that question in there number two set in process regular evaluation of merger and evaluation of articles committee that creates standards and questions and has a report due to the public on a regular basis one year three years etc I think that sounds good to me I'll look for your hands or yeah you're good okay I'm good yep advisory problem majority vote is always unfair to the smaller town you know do we want to recommend can there be a trans can there be can this be fixed what do we want to say I feel like it's always unfair to the smaller town are we asking if this the voting can be based on percentages well that's one suggestion I think we're asking the broader question of how can we deal with yeah can can can this and that's why I put it can this be fixed can this be yeah can this be fixed yeah yeah we add to what you've already got I mean I think if we took what you've already got and then after like the next item it next after the colon is are there legal options to weighted voting I don't know I like that what are or what are our legal options or even more simple is weighted voting legal yeah I like that is weighted voting legal I mean it may not be it may be that this is the way it is and just pull that right weighted yes weighted voting legal okay good um and that justine you're good is waiting voted legal is that good Tim you're good with that is weighted yeah yeah okay can the public have a vote say in realignment of grades between buildings question mark that one seems pretty clear to me do I have a thumbs up yep Tim yep amendment that board must propose only budgets that stay under the threshold we're good with that Tim yep before we get a more equitable voting process in place can we prevent a one-sided large bond vote a legal question moratorium question mark uh I'm going to just I think I'm going to say is moratorium is a is a moratorium voted by the board an answer a solution so it now reads before we get a more equitable voting process in place can we um that's sort of assuming we're going to go on that road I don't know um yeah the before uh but before we get a more equitable voting process in place can we prevent a once sided large bond vote legal question is a moratorium moratorium voted by the board a solution question mark we could say should should we move toward a change in the voting process during that period of time is a moratorium maybe instead of well I want to I want to keep I want to keep the focus on the bond because that's what this question is about is about the bond along one large-sided bond right I just meant instead of saying before we get a more equitable that's you know assuming that like you were saying during really it's about during that and during that process when it's not fully decided how we're going to vote for it I agree with justine the way the sentence opens up it's suggesting it's a done deal that we're going to vote to change voting yeah which we don't have that we don't have a confirmation on that yet yeah exactly so not a few months um um supposing we get a more or well it's still about before can we use in lieu of oh I like that in lieu of a more equitable voting process can we place can we prevent a one-sided large bond vote legal question is a moratorium voted by the board a solution okay good uh thumbs up on that you had tim did you hear that yep that's good good okay number five budget coded at the expense level to reveal accounting at each campus intent to reveal spending equity in real time at both campuses thumbs up on that from charity justine what are you thinking about I wanted to say I Janet Whitaker did make a comment during our earlier prior to the public comment I know she didn't say it but um she said that that there was a process going on already that allowed for this coding so I don't know um maybe we could say I don't know if that's true or not but I'm just not sure if the wording is correct if it's already happening I don't know if we know it's already happening do we want to put some note this may already be happening I think so this may you know may already be happening but could it be made more transparent or clearly represented or something like that to reveal the accounting so can I say something yep um I know that this is happening Janet has confirmed it at this meeting and at the last meeting yeah and I've already had conversations that she knows I've had that this is happening and has been happening pretty much all school year and possibly before that and it goes right in line with the Jamie really pushing for some changes su wide I think my bigger push for why I want it in here is that I and this is completely me personally so please nobody on this meeting think I'm speaking on behalf of this group or the board um me personally I have pushed for almost two years now at various meetings that documentation presented to the public at meetings um be done in a manner that is more visually presented in a manner that everyone can understand it not just those people who understand massive spreadsheets of accounting um one of the reasons I've pushed this is that I really I apologize I'm not trying to throw anyone out of the bus I really need the board to start understanding that this stuff is available to you and it's a matter of working with the tools you've got and using it in a manner that you can present to the public to make it easier for everyone to understand things um it's going to make it easier and alleviate some of the repeated questions that have a lot of contention on them at various meetings and spending time going over the same exact question three times in one meeting and at every single meeting um so me pushing this one isn't just for getting it making asking for it to happen at the su level or the school yet level but at the board level as well and having all three of those parties work together to present to the public all of that information as well it's a tool that I don't believe is being used to its full advantage can you can you give me some example charity I mean I think this is something to talk about later just because I am you know it's it's we're at three hours over three hours now um I'd love to see as board chairman I'd love to see examples of what you mean I would love to tell you that I could give you an example but I've never seen it with my own two eyes because it's not the type of document the board presents to us at meetings that's the problem if I were able to sit down with Tara or actually probably Janet could show me and see some of those pieces of the puzzle I'm I could probably quickly pick out this is going to help you explain this type of money spending this would help you explain and give answers quicker um could I do that for you yes probably would it take me a little bit of legwork to understand the books yes because I've never dug my head into them other than abort the budget that we get to see a very quick snapshot of I think I want to move on I just also my computer is at at 10% and I can't find my church court not that I want to rush us but I just want to make sure I can stay on here um let's let's let's talk about this let's talk about this some more because I think it's very much a part of how I approached doing the annual report last year with more explanation and I think we can go a lot farther with that number six how does a tie vote get broken in a school board vote what if a member is missing we just want to talk about that and then we have our our three pending list what are the consequences of a property dispersal article on the high school transfer to town of Rochester pending can we vote by percentages in each town as opposed to a majority pending with legal advisory and number three can the conditions of the merger that were mentioned in the planning period but now voted on be reviewed to see if there are important elements to reintroduce to the agreements are we good with those three yes they're not numbered on the sheet that you spent that you sent us can you just number the number two and number three under pending yeah and then one is what is the consequence of property dispersal number two is can we vote by percentages and number three is can the conditions of the merger that were mentioned and then the only other question I have is up on number six and advisory um do you want to put the word proxy vote question mark uh yes thank you and then I'm good with that so eastern I think we should meet again Monday because you've got some legal answers that you should know before going in on Tuesday and you might as well address them to the public Monday night before you before you uh go to the board on Tuesday I know it's another meeting for you too but no I think it's going to save you some time in the end how do I mean it it does the job thoroughly that's what I think we want it's it's getting late and I don't feel like we're we're not as you said that was our standard is to be 100 on this before we we left it and I don't think we're there so um do we want to uh do hopefully if the answers are clear it won't be that we've done a lot most of the legwork tonight I think for what we're presenting um so what do we feel about meeting again Monday at 6 30 and I will warn it tomorrow so that it gets out I am not available I'm committed to a standing executive board meeting that's right and then we have this we have this problem left with that yeah um how about Sunday at four o'clock it gets dark at three I could do that uh Janet justine I know I'm not sure about Sunday right now um if we kept it to oh no I just don't know if I don't know what's going on the other thing is about Sundays I'm not I'm not sure I'm going to get legal answers by then right that would be my concern you'll you'll get them at 5 30 Monday afternoon have an hour to look at them so I I want to know how my how our list is going to change if we have legal answers to the sections that don't have the legal answers wouldn't we just present the legal answer in that spot yes so I I mean I can see that we could share that prior with everyone but I don't know the decision for the presentation is going to change once those blanks are filled right and that is true it's just a matter of whether people are going to say that we didn't do that first before you went into the board meeting or not and I think we've got plenty to give to the board and it will be interesting to see what the outcome of that is yeah um I turned off my camera just see if I can get a little more power out of this I'm surprised how fast it went um um yeah I don't think it's going to work for us to meet again I just don't see how we're going to find a place for that um I agree with justine I don't think that there's a heavily weighted enough reason not to proceed and present this to the board I think I mean are any obviously you and Ethan and Justine are going to be a part of the board piece of it I mean Tim do you have any intention of not being a part of any other board conversations with this I mean I know I don't I intend to stay involved so I think anything that comes after that meeting or shortly before we're all going to still be available to keep pushing through this I agree good okay then I think I think we're done for tonight second and I will uh I'll put this final document out and if there can be there need to be little edits before Sunday I don't for next Tuesday I don't think that's a problem I will let you know about any new information I receive um and other than that we will next convene at the our sudden meeting on Tuesday night um I just because I'm running out of time do we need to schedule another meeting at this time or should we wait and I'll contact you after the board meeting next Tuesday I think we will I plan to have another one um should we say the week after sure the Tuesday after the board meeting Tuesday that week Monday's Monday's better for you that week yeah charity that's fine with me so that's what the 10th the 10th 11th 11th 11th yeah 11th at 6 30 that'll be our next meeting um and then yeah I think that'd be a good time we'll know a lot we'll have heard back hopefully some great good responses we'll know where to go forward from there okay good so our next meeting is scheduled uh January 11th at 6 30 virtual and I believe I will entertain a motion to adjourn good work we adjourn good work tonight everybody you too thank you but really really good thank you