 So I'm gonna call the meeting to order at four o'clock. Thank you all for coming. Back to the camera, that's okay. Yeah, and we have to look at the piece of testimony we got that's gonna be presented to the state board on August 15th, and approve it, and we also have to approve, I thought I printed a new agenda, but we have to approve the mat and Scott and Floor going to the state board. On behalf of the whole of the state. Right, and I sort of, the last time we met, I thought we didn't really need to approve that, but I guess we do. Yep, so we will. So I assume everybody's read this, looked at it. Does anybody have any comments, concerns, things they wanna change, things they'd like to add? Is that an option, even? Yeah, that's, they don't know. Technically it is. Yeah, technically it is, but. Hi, of course I don't like or agree with it all. So the one thing I wanted to talk about was they make a strong case about wealthier towns and poorer towns, and is that, is that accurate? Is East Montpelier more affluent than Calis? Do we know that? I'm not sure about Calis, but Worcester, yeah. So if you looked at the average income, median income, is that what you started, I think so, yeah. Grand list, or? Well then I would appreciate saying towns with higher average median income than wealthier. Wealthier is a loaded adverb, and it implies, you know, Daddy Warbucks type things, not higher median income. It comes up like three, in three different sentences, they really emphasize this. Despair. I totally hear what you're saying, and if we were just having a conversation between our towns about something, I'd be like, yeah, let's not use the loaded language, but it's supposed to be persuasive for the secretary, and I think that their choice of language was probably intended to embarrass the secretary for poor choices, you know? I think it's meant to be highly persuasive and dramatic. As opposed to... As opposed to gentle and... Which was the second thing I wanted to say was, because I got to thinking about why are they making such a big deal of this, and I think it's because, they talked, I think the strongest part is near the end, and the second to last paragraph when they're talking about, it's just not practical to do this because we're divided as a community. It's the sort of thing that that Adrian and I were trying to vie for, like, give us time to implement this, because right now is not the right time for the community. It's too divided, and it's gonna be really difficult. So I agree with them that it seems somewhat impractical. I think you can make that argument with a straight face. Is it impossible? I don't think they make that case at all, and what they're trying to say is that it's morally impossible because we've got these wealthy towns who have taken on debt, and from a moral point of view, it's not really possible to do this. But I think it's a pretty weak argument, but I suspect that's why they're emphasizing the wealth disparity. And I think that really is the only thing they can hang their hat on. About impossible. About impossible, because the rest of this is preference. It's all been done. Yeah, right, but you know, the fact that the debt is so different is a reality that a lot of other districts I don't think had. It may not be fair, but it's still possible. Right. But to me, the underlying message is you figured out, and we'll figure it out. Putting the onus on the state to figure out how are we gonna sort out the differences in the vote. Give us an equitable way to handle the debt. You know, why is it all of a sudden? Then we lose our reason to be stubborn about this. Exactly. Right, yeah. Why isn't the school boards, you know, a problem to figure out how this financially is gonna work? Well, what's the audience? The audience is the board of education. They're not gonna figure out the debt. That'd be up to the legislature. It would be, I would think. Right. Or the agency. Or the agency could potentially come up with a plan for how to have the towns keep the debt. Yeah. Just like the joint committee was getting to. The agency could be taxed. We probably have to go to the legislature. Nobody could run think of a proposal. For a way to deal with it. I mean, we know why, but you know, I also don't support. In the end, the one thing that all our boards agreed on universally and unanimously. That is not an accurate statement. Our boards agreed for the sake of peace. Honestly, for peace and going forward, I do not feel that we unanimously agreed there was no way to consolidate. We agreed to the report that we submitted because it was a way to go forward and then turn it over to see what the department or agency of education would say. It was a compromise. I do not agree with that statement at all. So I guess, so what are our options? There are things that we would. I don't know because if each board adopts this. I don't think they're asking for feedback so they can do another drive. Yeah. I don't think that's up or down. Can I take one step back? Absolutely. So my initial understanding was that the elementary boards were the ones that were voting on this. So are we just still developing our opinion of? That shifted though when we didn't come, we didn't arrive at the preferred model. Then it became our responsibility as well. And there was a misunderstanding that the U32 board was not allowed to. So when they constituted the original study committee to do all of that, the understanding at that time was that U32 was not a party to that. It was just the time. And we were advised right towards the end that we should have been represented the same as any elementary school. And it was right at the end that we found that out. Yeah. And I don't know whether you remember that meet. You know, we had like one meeting or two meetings to say, here's the proposal. What do we think? Because we get to weigh in. Yeah, no, I was correct the way. No, so we have. So when I read what we had been asked to do is number one, to appoint Scott Floor and Matthew to represent at the August 15th meeting. Second is to approve this written document as our collective response to their questions. So I believe we do have the opportunity to say the U32 board supports the majority of it but proposes revisions of, and we could itemize these couple things. And they can present whatever they want. If everyone else agrees, they can say this and they can include ours. And it's just. So they would be presenting. Theoretically, they could present one version that comes from the other five. If they all agree. Here's the U32's modified version. Yeah. We certainly could do that. I think I'm back to where I was last. When was that? May? Or something, yeah. Which is, we see how this is going and it's probably better to go into a unified and not have people blame U32 because of a decision that the agency's gonna make. Over a few words. I agree. But I'm starting to feel, I don't wanna use the term bullied because that's a loaded term. I'm starting to feel a lot of negative energy on the full board that is very, okay, no. The letter we were provided that the callus board is submitting on its own. Select board. Select board is submitting on its own to me goes completely against what we are talking about doing, being unified. And being presented with that, I was thrilled that that was provided, but I felt like that goes, that can basically threw down the gauntlet to, we can all have our own opinions and we can all say what we want to at this point. Cause otherwise, I was a better client. I missed the callus select board. It came in an email. And it was pretty strong. And it was very strongly saying the callus select board believes that our small school is perfect. We are doing everything, I'm being exaggerating. But we are doing everything right. There is no reason to consolidate. And it almost said over our dead bodies, would we ever close our school and consolidate with these other schools? It was very, very strong. And it came to us as an email just saying here, we're submitting this on behalf of ourselves. And so I... What's her name? And it was submitted to us at the supervisor. No, it was the select board here. Denise. It was just sort of sent a little reply to an email. Yeah, here, I'll get it. I'll see if I can find it for you. And we weren't being asked to do anything with it. No, and I think I hear the full board. There it is. I hear your feeling about the full board, but I think if you drill down, it's only the callus people that are speaking so loudly. It's you really look around. Right. The rest of us are just... Even in the meeting that night, you know... But no one said, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone agreed with us. We were right. And that's not true, as I said. I know, I can't... Yeah, yeah. You know, doesn't have to be a unanimous vote from this board. Right, yeah. You have that option. I mean, and that isn't... We could make our correction a fact on that. You make me look a lot better. Favorite resolution. In the end, the one thing that all the boards agreed on university unanimously is that our districts are not ready for consolidation. So did we vote unanimously to support the proposal? I think we did, Karen. We did. Did we? I think so, yeah. And what was that question? To what you just read there unanimously. No, we voted unanimously to support the proposal. Is that our districts are not ready for consolidation at this time? That's not. Yeah. Right, that is not... No, our report was... The proposal was to an alternative model of staying the same. It was not that we did not vote unanimously that we could not consolidate at all. The report actually says that down the road, we could potentially entertain it as well, right? So how could we... Is that our districts support an alternative model at this time, as opposed to not supporting consolidation? Yes. That would be more accurate. Support model of governance. It's pretty strong and long at this time. So a little more accurate, but if we submit something that's even slightly different, is it just the benefit of that or is it worth it? You know what I mean? I do know what you mean. There are other loaded words. If we want to... Right, if we're gonna make one change, remind me of... I know, I mean, there are loaded words. It says that the secretary, with arguments that even cursory examination just demonstrates are flimsy. It's a little bit of a loaded. There's a lot more... I mean, I can write a diplomatic, lawyerly-like document that does not use words like these are flimsy. So I agree that these guys are trying to be persuasive here. That they're not trying to be diplomatic. They're trying... The state has already said you can't... We're not gonna let you do this. And now they're trying to persuade this board that actually we should be able to do this. Right. And personally, I don't find this any more persuasive than the 60-page report which I've dated. Right. Yep. And I don't... If I had to bet, I don't think that the agency will either. There are all kinds of... The fact that this... We have a whole bunch of unions that have consolidated. And if they made an exception for us at this stage, it would be a political nightmare. And the unions are just like ours or more complex. Right. Ours is the most simple. Right. You can't get any easier. You think so? What? Even in regards to the whole debt load thing? That's really the only barrier. That's the only barrier. In my mind, that's the only barrier. We're already the union school. But that's the barrier that keeps coming up. But I think the state's argument around that is that at some point, there's always sort of the schools that... The towns that do not currently have bonds to repair their schools will still need to have money to repair their schools. And that's the argument that the state will have. The legislature took a long view on this. Whether it's 10 years or 20 years. It doesn't matter. Plus, when you talk about five towns, two having debt, I'm not sure I agree with the math they propose here because if you take the two towns, 18 and 14 or three, and you divide it over five, that is diluting it. Four, two don't even have our debt. Right. They all have U32 debt. So just speaking to the examples they gave them, they gave two. Those two divided by five is a lot more diluted than I think than what they talk about here. Actually hitting each individual taxpayer. So I would make a motion that the U32 and respectfully decline endorsing this document. Abstain. Yes, abstain. That would, I would make a friendly amendment that would like to abstain from endorsing this document. Is there a second? Are you taking notes here? Not at that level. No, I said we discussed the proposed estimate. You have to write the motion. You have to write it off. You have to write it off. Okay. I was going to rewatch the video on that. Here we go. I got blue pen here. If it's not seconded then we just keep going. To abstain. Could you speak more to that? Can you just, to abstain from commenting on this document? Yes. Is that what, is that? From adopting it. I mean from adopting it. Which do you want to say? To abstain. That was a nicer word. To abstain from approving this document. That's of this date. I guess an alternative would be to actually a better proposal would probably be that I make a motion to table indefinitely. Because then by Robert's rules of order we don't ever have to take this document up again. Right? I don't know. So by Robert's rules of order you can withdraw your first. Yes. And then you can submit a second. And as by Robert's rules expert if we table indefinitely we don't ever have to discuss it again. There's no obligation for you to ever take it up. You don't have to say, you don't have to say. You just say table. I mean table something that goes there and can come back when you want but you don't have to take it back. Right, right. So that would be. Okay so are you withdrawing the first one? Would that be more diplomatic? So what you would essentially be doing is you could withdraw your first motion. You could then say the, I think, I'm sorry I don't have the agenda in front of me but whatever the agenda item actually is. It says approve Washington Center of Testimony for State Board of Ed. You can move to table that. Peace. Same thing, you don't have to be seconded and you don't have to approve by the. My first one was not very popular. I withdraw my first motion, please. A KB. We can't do KBs since they're two KBs. You're probably like, don't move. And withdraws. You can't even, can't rest. And then. Oh, we gotta make our whole thing. Action, agenda, item 3.1, I move that we table. To table approval. Washington Central, is there a second to that? I'm curious to what end we would, what are what message are we trying to convey into whom by choosing to. Table. I think the message we're conveying is we don't support a propaganda like loaded persuasional document like this representing the collective WCSU. If it's going to represent opinions that agree and disagree with consolidation, there should not be persuasive language like this. It should be a more diplomatic document. That is our message. So would you like to see a change in the document? Language. I just, I don't want to break from the unified the group. I don't want to be the dissenter. That's kind of where I bought to. I feel like we as a larger body ask these people to get together and draft this on our behalf. And they did. And it meets the goal that the group had. I mean, I agree with you. It is colorful and persuasive. And were we having this dialogue within our own community, we wouldn't use that kind of language. But I think for the purpose of going back to the state who has already denied our request for how to move forward, given that this is an appeal and that it is intended to be persuasive and sway them the other direction, I guess I feel a little jerky at the last minute turning to our representatives and saying, hey, we don't like the way you did this start over. We don't have a second yet. No. So can I get a second? If not the motion. Yeah. We could make edits in about five minutes that we could propose as our version. So just on Robert's rules of order, you've asked for a second. You've heard none. I was just making sure. So this motion, so no second. I even think it's too late to suggest that. It's two boards have already adopted it. And it's coming up in what, week after next? Week 15. We have two weeks on that. When does the document need to be submitted? 15. I think I've seen it on Monday at 13. Okay. So is there another motion? I think the problem is the process for creating this document. There was no opportunity to provide feedback. So, and that's as much our fault as anybody else's. So even though these words don't represent the way I would put it, I'm comfortable enough. I swallowed hard last time. I know. It's not even as hard to swallow this time. I think the greater good here is that we remain unified so that, in my opinion, the agency's gonna decide the way they're gonna decide. And I don't want you 32 people. And then if they decide we have to go through with this, we sort of got what we wanted, and then we move forward again. Is that a motion? So is there a motion to approve this document? I'll make that. Okay, B, oh wait a minute. I will. I'll make that. I had to get them all mixed up. Kay Bradley. I know. You're Kay Bradley. There you go. You are too. Kay Bradley. Move to approve, I just wrote this, essentially put it in the testimony. And Carl, you seconded that, right? Yep. More discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Aye. One, two, three, one, two, three, four to one. Four to one, and that's Karen. Bradley. Okay, and is there... Never have contested, that's like the second contested vote in my entire time with the two of us. We can get the other one. Did you do one once? Yeah, not too long, recently. Actually, Jonathan did one once, too. We've had like three on his board. I don't really have a once at Doty. Somebody wanted that. So now we need a motion to accept Floor and Scott and Matthew to represent the Washington Central Boards at this state board of Ed. Moved. Second. Discussion about that? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries, moved to accept. Let's get this matter through. I'm curious, is this gonna be submitted in a written form or are they gonna actually read this? Both, I think. As like testimony style. I think both. They only get, what, 20 minutes? Mm-hmm. 20 minutes or half an hour? It's one or the other? I think it's 20. It's not long. Since Scott is a member of our board and is not here, I just wonder that he goes, I feel that the most diplomatic thing I should do is I would like, I will make my edits. I will send that to Scott, Floor, and Matthew and just explain what our discussion was. That's good, yep. And at some points I made so that they can, that we did vote in favor, but just as a learning thing, we were not happy with these languages but we didn't take it further at this stage. That's great, that would solve all the problems. Anything else? We are adjourned, thank you for coming.