Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 (upbeat music)
10:21 Good morning. The June 16, 2020 Rule Development Workshop and
10:24 Policy Work Session is now called to order.
10:27 We are continuing with modifications to our workshop processes
10:29 to address health and safety concerns as a result of the COVID-19
10:33 emergency.
10:35 Today board members will assemble in the boardroom without
10:37 community attendance.
10:39 The public may join us via our usual streaming channels.
10:42 We will invite staff members in one at a time when appropriate.
10:45 A registration link for public comments regarding the policies
10:47 under Rule Development was placed on the district website on
10:50 Friday, June 12, 2020 and left up until Monday, June 15, 2020 at
10:55 8 a.m.
10:57 Anyone who registered for public comments would have been called
10:59 Monday evening beginning at 5.30 p.m.
11:02 Pam, roll call please.
11:05 - Mrs. Belford. - Present.
11:07 - Mrs. Campbell. - Present.
11:09 - Mrs. Deskevich. - Present.
11:11 - Ms. McDougall. - Present.
11:13 - And Mr. Susan. - Present.
11:15 - If you would please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
11:21 - Pledge allegiance. - To the flag of the United States of
11:24 America and to the republic for which it stands,
11:28 one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
11:32 all.
11:36 - All right, first on our agenda are the policies under Rule
11:37 Development which I will list.
11:41 5771 on search and seizure, 7440.01 on protection of personnel
11:46 and property, 8406 on reports of suspicious activity and
11:50 potential threats to schools, facilities, students and employees,
11:56 8410 on crisis event intervention and response, 8410.01 on
12:01 critical incident response and 8420 on emergency evacuations of
12:05 schools.
12:07 Board members first discussed these policies during the policy
12:09 work session held on May 12, 2020.
12:13 No persons registered to make comments on any of the above
12:15 mentioned policies.
12:17 Therefore, unless any board member has anything they wish to add,
12:19 this will conclude the Rule Development Workshop.
12:26 - Board members, any concerns on the policies presented? - No.
12:33 - I’m sorry? - No.
12:35 - Yes. - Ms. McDougall? - No.
12:40 - Yes, that’s good. - Sure.
12:43 - Okay.
12:50 Now we will move into our policy work session. This is the board’s
12:53 opportunity to ask questions and request revisions.
12:57 These policies will come back for Rule Development on June 30,
13:00 2020.
13:02 We will begin with policy 5610 on removal, suspension and
13:05 expulsion of students.
13:08 I request Chris Moore, Assistant Superintendent of Student
13:10 Services, provide us the executive summary.
13:15 - Can I go over here? - Yes. - Okay.
13:20 - Hey, good morning, everyone. This is policy 5610. This policy
13:27 is being revised to clarify, update and change language and
13:33 procedures and other changes in compliance with applicable
13:36 Florida law.
13:37 Particular areas of revision include the following, changes to
13:39 the policy title, removal out of school suspension, disciplinary
13:44 placement and expulsion of students.
13:47 Sections one, application requirements for earned return for
13:51 expelled and/or students whose expulsion and abeyance out of
13:54 district or state misconduct,
13:56 waiver of suspension, expulsion, expulsion hearings, non-disputed
13:59 issues of material fact, disputed issues of material fact,
14:04 clarification to suspension from schools or from riding school
14:07 bus, added language to sections board action, final order and
14:10 appeal,
14:12 and these proposed revisions encompass the suggested language
14:14 from NEOLA.
14:16 And I want to just take some time to walk through them because
14:18 these are substantial changes to this policy and I think they
14:21 require a little bit of discussion, if you guys don’t mind.
14:26 So, you know, as we start off on the beginning of the policy, we’re
14:30 just adding some clarification language.
14:35 But as you go down, we’ve added the removal from class. This is
14:39 in line with statute 1003.32 and this is actually the Teacher
14:43 Authority Act.
14:45 It wasn’t in policy anywhere else that we could find it. It
14:47 belongs in this policy and so we put that in here.
14:52 It’s exact statute language, so no changes there.
14:57 In section E, suspension from school or from riding a school bus,
15:00 you’ll notice statute language number.
15:05 I’m looking at my red line version, so my numbers and letters
15:07 are all out of whack, but a student may not be suspended for
15:10 unexcused tardiness, lateness, absence or truancy.
15:14 That’s in statute language and we wanted to make sure to get it
15:18 added into policy.
15:20 The rest of that section was just moved around from other
15:23 sections just to make sense.
15:26 So I’ll just stop here for a second and make sure there are no
15:30 questions up to where we go for expelable offenses because that’s
15:35 where a lot of new language is.
15:38 [Inaudible]
15:45 Yeah, G is where I’m heading now.
15:47 [Inaudible]
15:53 I shut it off. In B, there’s that note that when it comes to our
16:00 ESC students, we had to follow procedures set forth in policy 5605,
16:04 which is really short policy and there’s no procedures attached
16:07 to it.
16:08 So just had a question–and basically what it says is that when
16:11 it comes to ESC, we’ll follow statute.
16:15 Yeah, there’s actually a–there’s about a 500-page book that
16:18 goes with that, Policies and Procedures, and it is going to be
16:22 coming to you guys probably in the next two board meetings.
16:27 It’s going to shock you a little bit because it’s going to say
16:29 2019 policies and procedures because the state releases that
16:32 when the state releases that
16:35 and then we have a certain amount of time to do what they want
16:37 us to do. They’ll point out different sections that they want us
16:41 to update and correct based on statute language and it is retro
16:44 as well as forward.
16:47 So that’s coming to you guys pretty soon, but it’s a pretty
16:48 substantial hefty document that actually–
16:52 We’ll attach then to that policy? Okay, okay. And then–thank
16:55 you. And then really quickly in C, in the definitions in number
16:59 4, the definition of expulsion,
17:02 and I’m just wondering if that needs to match the definition
17:06 later on in G because it says here for the number of school days
17:11 remaining in a semester or term in which the incident that gives
17:14 rise to the expulsion takes place
17:16 and one additional school year and then later down in G3, I
17:20 think, hang on, I’ve got the number. It actually says not to
17:26 exceed.
17:28 We’ll fix it. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you. That was it.
17:32 All right, let’s dive into G a little bit because there’s a lot
17:36 of changes in here. We really added process in here which we don’t
17:43 typically do in policy,
17:46 but because this has been a–there have been some questions
17:50 about how everything rolls out from the school level through to
17:55 the hearing, through to the findings, we wanted to make sure to
17:59 add some language around that.
18:02 So we define the process as first there’s an administrative
18:06 hearing at the school level, this is 1A, goes to principal’s
18:11 decision, superintendent’s recommendation, appeal process,
18:16 and then if you skip down to F, there’s a board hearing. That’s
18:19 our process in the past. We at some point were requested to add
18:24 an additional board meeting, so I’ve left that in there for
18:29 conversation.
18:31 If you guys wanted to add an additional meeting in there between
18:35 the appeal process and your hearing.
18:41 Yeah, I had that question of what that additional board meeting
18:44 was.
18:46 I believe that was the pre-hearing conference between only one
18:49 of the–like whoever’s gonna chair the expulsion hearing was
18:52 going to meet with the parties for basically discussion of the
18:56 issues that are gonna be heard by the board
18:59 and try and also resolve it before going to the full board.
19:04 Okay, but then we also talk about having that meeting with a
19:10 staff member.
19:13 Yeah, that would be the appeal process, so the parent or
19:15 guardian would meet with somebody from leading and learning,
19:18 either the assistant superintendent and the designee,
19:22 and determine if it was a dispute of material fact, an issue of
19:26 material fact, or if it isn’t, and work through it from there.
19:31 So that’s the staff part of it, and our understanding moving
19:34 through this policy is that there was a request to add an
19:38 additional meeting,
19:40 so we put it in there kind of as a placeholder because we
19:41 thought you guys might want to have conversation about it while
19:44 we’re still in this section of rule development.
19:50 Mr. Gibbs, we had talked previously, you and I had had a
19:54 conversation, and there was some conversation with Dr. Sullivan,
19:59 and I think you all were going to meet to kind of talk through
20:01 the process. Did you get an opportunity to do that during all
20:04 the–
20:05 Not met with her. I’ve met with, I think, almost all of the
20:08 board, and they were fine with doing the pre-hearing conference
20:11 piece of it.
20:13 And again, it would be like one of Dr. Sullivan’s team and the
20:16 parent or the representative of the student who would show up at
20:20 that,
20:21 and just go over, “Hey, this is what the witnesses are going to
20:23 be. This is what the exhibits are going to be.”
20:26 Both sides get them, and then try and resolve it at that meeting
20:29 as well with the board member present to oversee it as kind of
20:33 the neutral in the room,
20:35 so that if you got an attorney or a representative or the parent,
20:38 they get defensive when they’re looking at the person that’s
20:41 also trying to bring it.
20:44 So that’s the way it was viewed as it might be a good
20:45 opportunity for the board to say, “Okay, you’re only challenging
20:49 the discipline,
20:51 not the facts so much, and you can also narrow down what’s going
20:54 to be at play in the actual hearing if it actually goes.”
20:58 That was the thought between the board members on that pre-hearing.
21:02 If you don’t want it, that’s fine too.
21:05 We can take it out.
21:07 So that, I’m guessing that is the recommendation from the
21:10 conversation with Dr. Sullivan as well,
21:14 because I know there was some angst around that initially. I
21:16 just want to make sure that we’re not –
21:19 I don’t believe in – and Dr. Sullivan is in the next door. I
21:22 don’t believe that is her or our recommendation.
21:26 That’s the process we’ve had. We felt that was a recommendation
21:28 from the board, and so we wanted to make sure to include it.
21:32 And if that’s the direction we go in, we’re good going in that.
21:36 Oh, Dr. Sullivan can speak for herself.
21:40 Yeah. So did you hear the question?
21:46 Yeah, the question was after the appeal process, so after the
21:52 parent appeals to you and Lena Weibel does that piece,
21:57 is it your recommendation that we have a pre-hearing conference
22:01 so they can present to you, again, with the board member present,
22:06 their reason for disputing the decision?
22:11 I’m leaving the mic right now.
22:13 Yes.
22:16 I, of course, support the board’s direction. I don’t personally
22:20 believe it’s necessary,
22:23 because we meet with those parents exhaustively prior to the
22:27 board hearing.
22:29 But I’m also happy to facilitate it if, you know, the board
22:31 member is in a really difficult position at an expulsion hearing.
22:36 It’s the most significant action we can take against a student.
22:40 And so I am entirely in support of the board members who have to
22:44 make that incredibly difficult decision, you know,
22:48 wanting another step in the process. We’re meeting with them
22:51 anyway, so on my end, it’s not a concern, it’s additional on
22:56 your end.
22:58 And I want to facilitate whatever helps you in making that
23:02 really difficult decision.
23:08 Ms. Belford, my concern is the length of time we’re going to add
23:10 to the process.
23:13 I feel like sometimes it’s already so lengthy because we only
23:16 meet sometimes twice a month or even less, and it takes so long.
23:23 Is this going to add another week, another two weeks?
23:27 Can we ask Mr. Gibbs for a timeline?
23:30 Because I personally think that there needs to be a point prior
23:33 to the meeting and why we brought this forward
23:36 was because we have parents that are showing up with
23:38 expectations that are different than what we can actually do.
23:42 And I think that there have been instances in the past where
23:44 communication from them to us and everything else gets really
23:48 confused.
23:49 So having a point in that process where they bring their
23:51 documents, where they have their witnesses,
23:54 where we qualify them, all of that stuff so that we don’t have a
23:57 circus is needed.
23:59 So what was the timeline you were thinking about this process?
24:02 It can happen any time before the hearing.
24:04 So you could schedule, you know, they get the minimum of 14 days
24:07 notice for before their hearing.
24:10 In that interim, you can schedule like a pre-hearing just to
24:13 prep for that.
24:15 Like if you were going to trial, there would always be a pre-hearing
24:17 conference with the judge before you go to trial.
24:20 You come in, are there any issues that we need to be aware of
24:23 before trial starts that I need to be considering?
24:27 Are there any challenges to evidence, any challenges to
24:29 witnesses that are, you know, on the list for testifying and
24:33 that sort of thing?
24:35 It gets brought to the attention of the court before the hearing,
24:38 and it’s also the judge will ask, have you guys considered
24:41 resolutions, you know?
24:43 Have you gone to mediation or whatever?
24:45 Usually they order mediation in courts. You don’t do that here,
24:47 but you can always say, have you guys been talking?
24:50 They talk all the time, all the way up until the day of hearing.
24:54 So that part is going to be there, but it’s still an opportunity
24:57 to resolve them.
24:59 I have seen many of these in Marion. They resolve all the time
25:02 in my two years at that pre-hearing conference.
25:06 When they get in the room, they get with the board member, and
25:08 they’re going over all this.
25:11 Then they say, hey, have you guys had a chance to talk? And they
25:12 say, hey, can we go out and talk again?
25:15 And they come back and say, we’re resolved.
25:17 And that was the, if I can, I’m sorry.
25:20 That’s fine. And it’s really up to whoever’s going to chair the,
25:22 my recommendation, but if you’re going to do that, whoever’s
25:24 chairing that hearing would sit.
25:28 It’s the board member that needs to be there. You don’t have to
25:30 have the full board there.
25:32 It would just be the one member, so whatever their schedule
25:33 allows for up before that hearing.
25:36 So it wouldn’t add any length to the 14 days. It’s just whoever’s
25:39 going to chair it would know that in that 14 day window there
25:42 needs to be scheduled a pre-hearing conference.
25:46 And I think the idea that we created this was to reduce the
25:49 outcome of a lot of our expulsions.
25:52 So I think one board member with staff prior, as he’s had
25:56 experience up in Marion County, would reduce three board members,
25:59 witnesses, staff, everybody.
26:03 And that piece is where I was, when I heard this, I really was
26:06 excited about it because we have literally an entire
26:09 administrative staff that leaves during an expulsion process.
26:14 We have all of those components that are at that meeting. We can
26:15 avoid, as he says, many of those just by a pretrial and making
26:20 them present all the information.
26:22 They’ve sat multiple times through expulsions and each time they
26:25 come in with an expectation that we, as quasi-judicial members,
26:29 cannot even make those decisions.
26:32 Just to clarify, they aren’t presenting their evidence. They’re
26:34 just going to, you’ll have like, exchange your lists.
26:38 Who’s your witnesses and who’s that, and then you get to clarify.
26:40 The chair would get to say, all right, you’re only challenging
26:43 the discipline.
26:45 I know when I’ve been there, it’s sort of, they don’t really
26:47 know what they’re challenging so much, whether it’s the facts or
26:50 the discipline.
26:52 And that’s something I wanted, I had recommended we clarify with
26:55 the documents where they specifically state, I’m only
26:59 challenging the discipline versus the facts and the discipline.
27:03 Because those are different issues.
27:06 May I? So, what would be the difference in someone from staff
27:10 handling that conversation?
27:13 I mean, maybe, I know from our expulsion hearings that we have
27:15 this problem, obviously, and they sometimes don’t know what they’re
27:18 challenging.
27:20 If that was clarified in paperwork and in one of their many
27:22 meetings, would that help?
27:25 You feel like, I mean, you’ve watched this unfold in Marion, so
27:27 is it that beneficial all of a sudden now that a board member,
27:29 they feel like they’re being heard by a board member?
27:32 Is that why they then settle or they come to some conclusions?
27:36 It seems that the board member being present is almost like a
27:38 neutral, because they’re not the one presenting the case.
27:43 When it’s the administration, they’re the ones that are bringing
27:46 the charges against their students, so they get defensive.
27:51 And, I mean, I understand, like, hey, they’re just saying, hey,
27:53 here’s what it is.
27:55 You know, Dr. Sullivan, if she’s the one sitting in that meeting
27:57 with the parent, isn’t the one that brought charges.
28:00 The principal, you know, got the violation and the deans
28:02 investigated or however it came up to the principal who made the
28:06 recommendation based on board policy.
28:09 Parents get defensive, you know, my kid didn’t do that, or for
28:12 whatever reason they get defensive and they want to defend their
28:15 child, and that’s understandable.
28:17 But when the board member’s there, that’s who’s going to be
28:19 sitting in judgment.
28:21 It seems like it kind of alleviates some of that tension, and
28:23 parents will state their peace, if you will, to the board member,
28:28 and that kind of deflates the adversity in the room.
28:33 And then it seems to make them a little open to discussing
28:36 settlement a little better.
28:39 Especially if the board member clarifies, you know, you’re only
28:42 challenging the discipline, why do we need or why do you need
28:45 all these other witnesses, if it’s only the discipline piece.
28:49 Do they make, if I can just spell for you to continue, do they
28:52 make decisions in that hearing?
28:55 So if they’re challenging the discipline, who’s in that meeting
28:57 exactly?
28:58 The family and the student?
29:00 The family, or the student, the parent, or their representative,
29:03 or all of them can be there.
29:05 And one board member, and are you present in that meeting?
29:08 Yes.
29:09 Someone else?
29:10 Dr. Sullivan?
29:11 Yeah, someone from administration would be there.
29:14 Okay, and so the family is upset over the level of discipline,
29:17 can a decision be made at that meeting?
29:21 The board member does not make any decision.
29:24 So it has to, but could it be mediated, like at that point?
29:27 You exchange, you exchange, it’s really like here’s the evidence,
29:30 you know, the administration’s going to give all the witnesses
29:33 and everything that they’re going to call and intend to call at
29:36 that hearing.
29:38 Here’s the exhibit list that we’re going to present, and in most
29:40 cases it’s, you know, here’s the investigative packet, that’s
29:43 what it is.
29:45 Then the parent gives their witness list and exhibit list to the
29:48 administration if they didn’t already have it.
29:52 So a lot of times they already have it because they wanted to
29:54 conduct some sort of discovery.
29:57 Then there’s that, you know, do you have anything to say?
30:01 The administration usually says the charges are based on this,
30:04 and they kind of walk through the investigation.
30:07 The parent will say, you know, my kid didn’t do it, or this was
30:10 all a misunderstanding, and they’ll say their piece.
30:14 And at that point it’s like, have you guys discussed resolution?
30:18 Is there any chance at resolving the matter here before the
30:21 hearing?
30:23 And they’ll say, yes, we’ve discussed, we would like to discuss
30:25 a little further.
30:27 Oftentimes they would go out of the room and discuss with
30:29 administration the opportunities for settlement, and then they
30:32 would come back, we’ve settled, we haven’t settled,
30:36 but we’re going to continue to talk, we just need to clarify
30:38 something with administrative staff, and they would go on, and
30:41 then we’d get a call that they settled.
30:45 In two years I never had one expulsion hearing go to the board.
30:48 That’s so strange to me, because how many meetings do you all
30:51 have before, you keep saying extensive, so you’ve met several
30:55 times and tried to, right?
30:58 Yeah, sometimes a lot, sometimes less. You know, one of the
31:08 things that I feel strongly about, as frustrating as those
31:12 hearings are, as difficult as it is on everyone,
31:17 it’s the single most serious thing that we do, and so we believe
31:22 we should take as much time as necessary, as much people as
31:28 necessary, as much process as necessary,
31:32 and even if it’s a really long meeting, on the scale of the
31:34 action we took against the child, you know, I think that’s okay.
31:39 So, for our end, we’re willing to talk as many times, you know,
31:45 the difficulty is that, you know, we annually, maybe six or
31:50 seven a year that have a board hearing,
31:53 it’s coming from emotion of the parent, not necessarily a
31:56 logical response, and they need that moment to be, they feel
32:00 that that’s an important part of being their child’s parent.
32:04 And we’re okay with that too. So, my feelings are I’m entirely
32:09 comfortable with
32:12 Any of it, what I didn’t wanna do
32:13 is change it mid-year last year.
32:15 I felt really strongly about that,
32:18 about trying to implement a process midstream
32:21 ‘cause we’re constantly flooding policies and procedures
32:24 at our deans that are in the midst of everything.
32:27 And so I felt really strongly about not changing mid-year,
32:30 which is why when we went and worked
32:33 on the preliminary change for this upcoming year,
32:36 we included that the board had mentioned this desire
32:40 and wanted you all to decide.
32:42 For me, we’re already doing those.
32:45 We’re already, so none of that is extra work for us.
32:48 None of that is work that I don’t think is important.
32:51 So we are already willing to meet and discuss
32:56 and modify within the scope of policy, of course,
33:00 ‘cause then there’s a point that we can’t,
33:03 prior to them getting to you,
33:04 which is why a lot of them cancel,
33:07 even though they’re scheduled,
33:08 ‘cause we continue to work with the families
33:10 right up until the day of the hearing.
33:13 So it’s no more work on our part
33:16 ‘cause we’re doing it already.
33:18 It’s just a matter of how formally
33:20 do we wanna write it into policy
33:22 that this is a required exact step.
33:26 That’s okay too, that’s really up to you guys
33:28 because it’s your policy that would last for,
33:32 hopefully we don’t have to change it next year.
33:34 So that’s really up to you.
33:36 In terms of practice, I’ll do whatever.
33:40 It’s not more work for us.
33:41 I believe the parents should be able to talk to me
33:44 and meet with me and Lena
33:45 and the principals as many times as they want.
33:47 So we’re really comfortable with any of it.
33:52 It’s really your policy, your plan,
33:55 or if in practice we try it before we put it in policy,
33:59 I’m okay with that too.
34:00 Honestly, it’s not a hindrance on me.
34:03 It’s a new practice for you guys.
34:06 - Can I jump in here a minute?
34:08 So I think it’s a good idea
34:10 only because as a neutral person,
34:14 we may not need to meet as often if we join one time.
34:19 But I am concerned that it would be the person
34:21 who’s the chair, which would be Ms. Belford
34:25 or Mr. Sussan because typically the three of us
34:29 don’t chair those expulsion meetings.
34:31 So I’m wondering if we wanna look at it in a different way
34:34 just for if we agree to go that way.
34:37 - The rotation you mean?
34:38 - Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking.
34:39 Or if it’s, I don’t know what you think Mr. Gibbs,
34:42 if it’s a student, if it’s one of our schools,
34:44 of course that could be a problem too.
34:47 So I was just wondering if it was in our district,
34:50 if we wanted to be the person in that appeals.
34:53 Just throwing things out.
34:55 But anyhow, I don’t think it’s a bad idea.
34:57 I think it could alleviate some of those intense meetings
35:02 that we end up in.
35:03 - Ms. Belford.
35:04 - The only thing I would say to the one
35:06 that’s coming out of your district
35:07 is you might get a conflict more frequently
35:10 if it’s coming out of your district.
35:11 You know the parents. - Because sometimes
35:12 I’ve already contacted us before that.
35:14 - That’s true. - Or it’s your friends.
35:15 - And you know those people.
35:18 You know the groups they’re gonna bring in.
35:19 You know the, like when they go to bring witness testimonies
35:23 they’re doing that on purpose to bend you.
35:25 So I think that I absolutely agree with you
35:28 that we should almost be removed
35:30 if the person’s inside of our district
35:32 from being that person.
35:33 - Ms. Belford.
35:34 - I would just say, you know,
35:35 if you wanna give it a test run
35:37 you don’t have to add it to policy now.
35:39 You can always add it to your orders
35:41 or your letters saying, you know, let’s go this way.
35:44 You’ll be scheduled for a pre-hearing conference
35:46 prior to the actual hearing date.
35:49 And it’s not in policy and if you try it out for a couple
35:52 and it’s like hey, it’s not really working,
35:54 they’re still going to hearing
35:56 and we’re just gonna take it out
35:58 and let them do whatever they’ve been doing
36:00 trying to resolve them.
36:01 - That makes sense.
36:02 Ms. Belford, I just, you know,
36:04 just thinking through the kinds of hearings that we have,
36:07 we usually have, I mean there are a few times
36:09 that we have parents disputing the facts of the case,
36:14 you know, or whatever,
36:14 but that’s usually a smaller portion
36:17 of the ones that I’ve served on or been aware of.
36:20 Seems like a lot of them are wanting more leniency
36:24 in the, you know, the discipline.
36:28 But then there’s sometimes people
36:29 who don’t actually question either one,
36:30 they’re just upset with how it went,
36:33 which actually can’t really get resolved,
36:35 but they want to be heard.
36:37 I think that’s where something like this could be helpful
36:39 because, you know, we just want to be heard,
36:40 we felt like we were mistreated or whatever,
36:42 but, you know, there’s been some of those.
36:46 So in that case, you know, if it’s just an opportunity
36:49 for, you know, because if they want to be heard,
36:51 they want to keep moving up the chain, right,
36:53 and the board is the next place up the chain.
36:57 So to have someone there, as long as it’s, you know,
37:01 the board member is not making any decisions,
37:04 the only result that could come out of that
37:05 as far as resolution is a resolution with, you know,
37:09 what you guys have talked about.
37:10 Usually we walk out of there and it’s just a, hey,
37:13 a renewed explanation of the alternative school process
37:17 or what their options are,
37:18 when I know you guys have fully presented them before,
37:20 but sometimes there’s that mental block,
37:22 they’re not ready to go there yet.
37:25 So I, you know, but I like the idea
37:28 of maybe not putting it in policy yet.
37:30 Thoughts, Dr. Sullivan and Ms. Moore?
37:34 - I certainly am in favor of that, just,
37:39 but again, it’s your policy
37:40 and however you want to generate the policy.
37:43 We would certainly be happy to give it a go,
37:48 just from a procedural standpoint.
37:51 So either, honestly we’ll make anything work
37:57 just to help facilitate your all’s comfort
37:59 in those tough decisions.
38:01 - If I may suggest, my only fear
38:04 with not putting anything in policy
38:06 is if we request a pretrial hearing
38:10 and they look at policy and say there’s nothing in policy
38:12 that says that I must participate in a pretrial hearing.
38:15 So might I suggest that we put into policy
38:21 that the board may request
38:23 or the district may request a pretrial hearing
38:26 and that way it’s documented, but it’s not a we have to.
38:32 Would that, Mr. Gibson, what’s your opinion on that?
38:34 - That’s fine, you can make it a permissive.
38:36 I mean, if it’s, you know, hey, my kid didn’t do this
38:38 and it’s adamant and administration is saying,
38:41 hey, the parents are fighting it tooth and nail all the way,
38:44 then it might not be something that you want to go to.
38:48 You know, if they’ve lawyered up
38:50 and they have attorneys coming to represent their kid,
38:53 then they might not.
38:56 - So would the board be comfortable with that?
38:58 - Maybe the language any party may request, is that?
39:01 - That’s fine.
39:02 - And then I like the idea of rotating.
39:06 The chair has a lot to do already all the time.
39:09 And so I really do like the idea
39:11 of everyone getting the experience of chairing that
39:14 if you all are doing it like that.
39:16 - It can always be if you didn’t want someone
39:19 who is gonna sit on that panel,
39:21 one of the other two will sit on that pre-hearing.
39:25 That way that person is not gonna be sitting in judgment.
39:29 So they really are neutral.
39:31 They’re not gonna come in there
39:32 and hear any facts prior to the thing.
39:35 They’re just gonna try,
39:36 their main motivation is gonna be,
39:37 hey, what do we need to do to try and resolve it?
39:41 - And if there’s a way of making sure it’s,
39:44 I don’t know if it matters necessarily
39:46 if they’re in our district and we don’t know them,
39:47 but I think that always is better if it’s not our district.
39:54 - So I think it’s an amazing policy
39:56 and I appreciate your knowledge on this in process
39:59 for Marion County.
40:00 It already says that it’ll reduce our expulsions.
40:05 It also says that reduce our staff time.
40:08 Look, if we can avoid having the SRO,
40:11 the principal, the assistant principal,
40:13 the teacher out of the school for half the day,
40:16 because when that happens, we pull people
40:18 from other schools to cover them.
40:20 That alone is worthless policy.
40:23 This is a streamlined process.
40:24 The other thing that drives me crazy during these
40:27 is that they bring non-qualified witnesses.
40:30 Those are not, if you read the quasi-judicial process
40:33 inside the administrative law books,
40:35 there’s a qualified list.
40:37 You are not supposed to be a witness
40:38 unless you are a qualified witness
40:41 and you have a persistence that reduces
40:43 the pontification over these things.
40:45 Like, I love that streamlined process
40:48 of presenting your evidence.
40:50 - When you say qualified, are you referring
40:52 to the representative, not the witness?
40:54 - No, the witnesses.
40:55 - A witness is just a witness.
40:57 I mean, anyone can be a witness.
40:59 There is a process for qualifying as a representative.
41:01 They’re supposed to apply– - On a specific topic.
41:04 - Well, just to be a representative.
41:06 There’s a qualifying process in the administrative code
41:10 for qualifying as a representative.
41:13 So that is a separate process.
41:14 - So what you’re saying is if they wanted
41:16 to bring five people to talk about
41:18 what a wonderful kid that is in background,
41:21 like a character witness type thing,
41:22 they can bring as many of those as they’d like.
41:24 - They can’t be redundant.
41:26 So I mean, there is prohibitions of being redundant.
41:28 So if they have five people that are gonna come in
41:30 and say the same thing, it would be,
41:31 hey, you’ve got, until they start testifying,
41:35 you don’t prohibit them.
41:37 It would be, once they start, hey,
41:39 this is redundant evidence,
41:42 can we move on to something that’s not?
41:44 And in other cases where they say
41:46 that this is an expert witness,
41:47 and we’ve seen in many cases inside of it
41:50 that it’s a friend that has
41:51 some kind of connection to something,
41:53 those aren’t expert witnesses.
41:55 So we should not be hearing the testimony
41:57 from that person as an expert witness.
41:59 So, and then the other thing is is that I love it
42:01 because it’s a common practice in law
42:04 to have pretrial mediation in everywhere we go.
42:08 Every single process that you have,
42:09 you have pretrial mediation,
42:11 and this is part of the process that we have.
42:12 So I like it.
42:14 I would actually say that we put it into policy
42:16 because I’m afraid that if we’re saying
42:19 that we can request, they can request
42:21 that it might lead to a discrimination
42:23 or an argument that, what do you think about that?
42:25 Like if we leave it that way,
42:28 and all of a sudden there’s one time
42:29 that we don’t accept it,
42:31 does that create a discrimination
42:32 that we did to somebody else?
42:34 Does that make sense to you?
42:35 - I mean, it’s really, if you’re doing it based on just,
42:41 I mean, you could open yourself up
42:42 to a little bit of a claim,
42:44 but I think it would be more on,
42:45 you could easily show it was the facts of the situation.
42:48 If the board’s wanting options just to kind of test it out,
42:52 I think that would be one thing for leaving it permissive.
42:55 If it really works, then it’s cutting things down
42:58 and they’re resolving at these hearings.
43:00 The board might wanna say,
43:01 we’re just gonna make it mandatory
43:03 when, you know, the next year or something.
43:05 And then, but it does leave it
43:07 so that you don’t have to do it right now.
43:10 - That was my only concern is that it leads us open
43:12 for one of these lawyers to say that you didn’t hear
43:15 and you did hear and give a little bit of a hook.
43:17 That’s all, that due process,
43:18 that due process, Peach, that we keep getting smacked with.
43:21 - If we include what Ms. Deskevich said
43:23 so that either party can request.
43:25 - The school board or either party
43:27 may request a green hearing.
43:31 - But if you say they’ve got a lawyer,
43:34 they’ve got this, so we’re just not gonna request it.
43:37 And then another family goes and gets a lawyer later
43:40 and says, well, the main premise,
43:41 why is it that you decided not to take the pretrial?
43:45 Why didn’t you do that?
43:45 Well, because they had a lawyer.
43:46 Well, that’s discrimination.
43:48 - Why would we, if someone requested it, why would we–
43:51 - What would we, the reason behind it
43:52 would be why we wouldn’t, why would we not?
43:55 And if those processes can be seen as discrimination,
43:57 then that’s where my issue with it is, that’s all.
44:04 - I wouldn’t be overly concerned.
44:06 I would, like I said, my recommendation is to hold them.
44:08 So, I mean, my intent would be why wouldn’t you sit down
44:11 with them for hearing, but if you don’t want it
44:14 to be mandatory for whatever reason,
44:15 you can always leave it permissive.
44:17 - Yeah, I thought on the request is not that we would,
44:20 they would request it and we’d say no,
44:22 but they would request it if they want one.
44:23 If they don’t request it and then we don’t have one.
44:25 - Not on their part, what I meant was on our part.
44:28 - Yeah, if we’re requesting it of everybody,
44:30 but people with lawyers is what he’s arguing.
44:33 But I would say bring them all in.
44:35 - That’s what I was saying, if we’re gonna do that anyway,
44:37 then it might be worth it.
44:39 - I think the reason to not make it mandatory in the policy
44:41 is if after a year we think, or even six months,
44:45 it’s not making a difference, we can back off from it
44:48 without having to go through a whole policy change.
44:50 For me, it wasn’t so much that we’re gonna pick and choose
44:52 who we’re gonna do this with.
44:53 - No, and I agree with you.
44:54 My thing is is that no matter what,
44:56 we would have to go through a policy change.
44:58 So if we make it a policy change now,
45:00 we would have to make it a policy change to remove.
45:02 If we didn’t make it a policy change now,
45:04 we would have to make it a policy change to add.
45:06 - Not if it’s option, not if it’s you can request,
45:11 and in our procedure, just we stop requesting on our part.
45:13 It still means they could request,
45:15 but we’re not gonna–
45:16 - So the policy would remain forever
45:18 that both sides can request.
45:19 - Until we needed to change it again for something else.
45:21 I think that’s the point of making it flexible.
45:23 I’m not hard-nosed on that, Mr. Susan.
45:25 I’m just– - Makes sense.
45:26 No, no, no, I’m okay with it, I just–
45:30 - I just wanna capture some of your thoughts,
45:32 ‘cause we’re gonna wrap some language around this.
45:35 It’s gonna be titled pre-hearing conference.
45:37 What I just heard is either party may request
45:39 a pre-hearing conference, and it’s within the 14 days
45:43 prior to the hearing that a board member will chair,
45:47 and that board member will be whoever
45:50 is not presiding in the hearing itself.
45:55 - One of the two that are not gonna sit on the panel.
45:59 - Yeah, I’ll work on the language,
46:00 but that was my understanding.
46:02 - And preferably not from the area
46:05 that the student is residing in themselves,
46:09 that the purpose of the hearing is to determine
46:11 if what is being challenged is discipline or facts,
46:15 and that there could be mediation as an outcome,
46:19 but that a board member will not render judgment
46:22 at that pre-conference hearing.
46:23 Did I miss something?
46:25 - I don’t think you missed anything,
46:27 but I think it’s maybe we should not have in policy
46:32 that it has to be someone that’s not on the,
46:34 I just foresee, I think that should be our practice,
46:37 and we should try to do the things
46:39 that have to do with who’s serving where.
46:41 I just foresee someone out of town, someone’s sick,
46:44 now there’s three, and we’re gonna get ourselves
46:46 violating our own policy.
46:48 - Okay, we’ll get some language,
46:50 and the next time you see this,
46:51 it’ll be something for you to look at.
46:53 Yeah, yeah, yeah. - Thank you.
46:54 - I’m sorry, if I could ask one more clarifying question.
46:57 So this pre-hearing conference would include myself,
47:03 the relevant board member, Mr. Gibbs,
47:07 and students, and a member of the school.
47:11 I just wanna make sure I–
47:12 - No, no, it really, it could be you or, like, Ms. Weibel,
47:16 if you wanted Ms. Weibel to sit in.
47:17 It could be the parent only.
47:19 It doesn’t have to be the student there.
47:20 It could be there, if they have a lawyer,
47:22 it could just be their lawyer
47:23 that shows up with the parent.
47:25 - Are we recommending school administration?
47:27 - No, they don’t need to be there yet.
47:29 - You’re recommending them not be at that meeting?
47:30 - Yeah, the only people that need to be there
47:32 is, like, just a representative like you
47:35 or who you want to show up on behalf of the district,
47:39 the parent or their representative along with the parent,
47:43 and then the board, whoever,
47:44 whatever board member’s gonna be there,
47:45 and then I would be there to advise the board member.
47:47 - Okay, thank you.
47:56 - You may wanna stay near the door.
47:58 All right, we’re good to move on from that section of G.
48:04 Any other questions on G?
48:07 - Number, oh, nevermind, that was it.
48:11 Oh, I did have, does this policy need to say something,
48:18 have something about only three board members
48:22 sitting on the expulsion hearing or it doesn’t include
48:28 that anywhere, but I mean, and if it’s not necessary,
48:31 no reason to add it, but that will sit
48:34 on the expulsion hearing?
48:38 - Yeah, the NEOLA language was super specific,
48:41 but it’s not how we hold hearings,
48:43 so I’ll leave that to Mr. Gibbs to say whether or not
48:47 we have to include that into this policy specifically.
48:50 - Actually, I think this is H, sorry, I’m at H1.
48:53 All expulsion hearings will be conducted
48:54 by members of the school board, which is fine,
48:58 ‘cause it doesn’t say, and then,
49:03 no, the other one was related to suspensions.
49:04 I had a question about something that’s back up,
49:08 so if we wanna wait, or if we can go back now.
49:11 - Yeah, whatever, I’m fine going back.
49:14 - So because the situation has come up before,
49:18 and sorry, I should have jumped, I didn’t really,
49:20 I forgot that this was suspensions and not expulsions,
49:23 but in our suspension policy or procedures or somewhere,
49:26 do we have something that is allowing principals
49:30 to delay a suspension?
49:34 The policy, as I read it, said unless they’re a serious
49:39 threat at the time, need to be removed
49:40 from campus immediately, the suspension will start
49:43 the following morning, right, the following school day.
49:48 The reason why I ask is because I believe
49:51 there have been times when a suspension has been delayed
49:55 so that a student can participate in an athletic event
49:58 or extracurricular event, and let’s say that track meet
50:01 or whatever is on a Tuesday, they get suspended
50:04 on a Monday, we’re gonna start your suspension on Wednesday
50:06 so that you can participate in the track meet.
50:08 Is there something in our policy that would prohibit that
50:12 or that allows it or speaks to it in any way?
50:18 - And if I can add to that, it may not just be
50:19 an athletic event, it could be finals week
50:21 or something of that nature or FSA week, SAT week,
50:25 there’s academic reasons too, I can see why.
50:28 - I don’t know that it needs to say when we’re there
50:29 ‘cause there could be times when you’ve got testing
50:32 going on or whatever, but I don’t necessarily,
50:35 I’m not particularly fond of the idea of delaying
50:37 a suspension so that a star athlete can participate
50:39 in a track meet ‘cause it doesn’t represent–
50:41 - It is, I will tell you that it is in our practice
50:44 to start the suspension the next day unless there’s reason
50:46 to start it the day of the event and that happens.
50:50 There’s nothing in here that specifically says it has to
50:54 because it’s left up to principle judgment.
50:58 We can work on some language and bring it back
51:00 and see if it captures the, we don’t want them suspended
51:03 for SAT but we also don’t want them playing
51:07 in the basketball game that night or football game that night
51:11 so work on some language to wrap around that
51:14 and see if you like it.
51:15 - Yeah, I hate to make it super complicated
51:18 but to be completely honest, it very poorly reflects
51:22 on our schools and it’s unfair to the other students
51:24 to say hey, I just saw them in a fight
51:26 and they got suspended and here they are at this activity.
51:31 I don’t think it makes our staff, our teachers
51:36 and feel good about it either so yes, if you could.
51:42 - Yeah, I will and certainly if there is an occasion
51:46 to let us know that that happens, that shouldn’t
51:49 be happening and we’ll be happy to address that.
51:51 I can’t say I can tell you that never happens
51:56 but I can say I think it’s a very small exception.
52:00 So yeah, we’ll work on that language.
52:02 - I have concerns about putting that
52:04 and taking away authority from a school.
52:06 I obviously don’t want that to happen either, Ms. Campbell
52:08 but I just think we need to maybe think about that
52:11 or have some more discussion about that
52:13 with maybe a few principals or you all, Dr. Sullivan.
52:17 Are we gonna put something hard nosed in a policy
52:21 now that the principal’s hands are tied when they’re,
52:24 now someone is, grandma’s died, that’s not in there.
52:27 It’s not clear, I just wanna make sure we’re not
52:29 taking away authority that a principal may have
52:33 while still making sure.
52:35 - That’s my concern also.
52:38 I don’t want to tie the principals.
52:42 I’m assuming that they make the best decision
52:44 and they know the students and that the discipline
52:48 fits the infraction so I get concerned
52:52 when we put something like that in policy.
52:55 - It may already be covered in the,
52:58 we added an item under suspension that talks about
53:01 suspension of extracurricular activities
53:05 but if we can, we’ll take a step back.
53:08 We’ll look at language that allows principal autonomy
53:12 but also says you can’t delay a suspension
53:16 based on an athletic event.
53:17 We’ll bring you something that tries to balance out
53:21 what you guys are saying.
53:22 - Thank you, appreciate that.
53:23 Yeah, it does, I did notice there was the line that said,
53:26 my understanding of that particular line was,
53:29 I’m trying to find it, that it was,
53:34 that that wasn’t necessarily part of the suspension time
53:36 but let’s say, from now until the end of the semester,
53:40 you’re not allowed to participate in let’s say,
53:42 student dances or that’s the point of that line.
53:45 - That’s the purpose of it but it’s there
53:47 so we can try to figure out what the language has to be
53:50 to balance the, principal has to be able to make judgment
53:54 based on what’s in front of them and the best needs
53:56 of their school and students but shouldn’t be
54:00 basing the judgment on their win-loss record.
54:02 So we’ll work on some language to–
54:04 - Thank you.
54:04 - Yeah.
54:08 - Mr. Gibbs, do you have a concern about the 14 days prior?
54:13 - No.
54:14 - ‘Cause it kind of extends back in, okay.
54:20 - Okay.
54:22 - That’s all I have.
54:23 - All right, I’m moving on to H guys,
54:25 the expulsion hearing itself.
54:28 We did add that whole section,
54:30 a whole section came from Neola language
54:33 with the exception of number five
54:35 which was at the request of the board.
54:38 So if we take a look at number five,
54:40 that’s about appropriate behavior
54:43 in the board hearing itself by all parties
54:46 and we used the language from the board meetings
54:50 and we added that should somebody have to be removed,
54:53 it does not stop the hearing,
54:55 the hearing goes on to its conclusion
54:58 because we didn’t want anybody to think
55:00 that we would stop and reschedule based on bad behavior.
55:03 So any questions about H, the expulsion hearing?
55:10 I and J were just the conversation
55:13 about what is being disputed in the hearing.
55:15 Again, that’s straight Neola language.
55:17 Is it an item of disputed fact,
55:20 meaning is it the facts of the case
55:22 or is it discipline or emotion?
55:25 But that should be covered in the pre-hearing conference
55:30 and I may be moving I and J under that section
55:33 as a one and two because that’s what should come out
55:36 from the pre-hearing conference.
55:40 K and L were added, they are Neola policy.
55:43 This has always been in statute
55:45 so we wanted to make sure that we put in there
55:48 the board action, the final order
55:49 and a parent’s right to still appeal after the board action.
55:56 N starts talking about earned return.
56:00 This section was added, it was always in there in part,
56:04 but earned return has always been at the principal’s
56:08 decision of whether to offer it
56:10 or not offer it for certain offenses.
56:15 Leading and learning monitored that
56:16 and if it wasn’t offered, they always called and said,
56:19 why didn’t you offer this for this offense or that offense?
56:22 We decided to go ahead and put in
56:27 these will definitely be offered
56:28 and these will definitely be not offered earned return.
56:32 And the reason that we did that
56:34 is to ensure that principals knew
56:36 that some situations are not judgment.
56:39 Don’t send it up to leading and learning
56:41 ‘cause they’re just gonna call you back and say,
56:44 why didn’t you offer earned return?
56:46 Just do it right this first time.
56:48 So those items were alcohol possession, sale, use, oops,
56:52 I just found a mistake.
56:55 It is not for distribution of drugs.
56:58 It should be just sale, possession,
57:01 should be just possession and use.
57:02 Is that correct, Stephanie?
57:04 Yeah, should be just possession and use.
57:06 Sale and distribution belong on the not earned return list.
57:10 Bus transportation, procedure violation, major,
57:14 chronic misconduct, classroom disruption, cyberstalking,
57:18 drug use, possession, excluding alcohol,
57:20 failure to report criminal offenses,
57:23 fighting as opposed to battery, larceny,
57:29 750 grader, network internet misuse and vandalism
57:33 will all be offered earned return.
57:35 The following offenses will not be offered earned return
57:38 and they’re eligible under statute.
57:40 The following will not be offered earned return.
57:42 Arson, battery with more serious injury,
57:46 drug sale or distribution,
57:48 false accusation against a staff member,
57:50 homicide, kidnapping, sexual battery,
57:53 threat and intimidation or weapons possession.
57:56 What you see between those two lists,
57:58 if you look at the definitions of those offenses
58:01 is in the definition it shows you which are minor
58:05 and how you reach the major status
58:07 and what the difference between those two are.
58:09 There’s a line between many of those two.
58:16 And in addition to that,
58:17 there are some that are still going to be judgment.
58:21 It’s gonna require the principal and leading and learning
58:25 to have a conversation case by case.
58:28 What are the situations surrounding it?
58:30 Give us more information before they decide
58:32 whether or not they offer earned return.
58:38 Questions about that.
58:45 The earned return policy in general
58:48 is the same as it was.
58:51 We’ve added a little bit of language about drug testing
58:53 because we used to give three drug tests.
59:02 Now we give one prior to them leaving
59:04 and one within three weeks of them
59:06 being in their homeschool.
59:09 If they test positive on either of those drug tests,
59:12 their earned return is taken away.
59:23 Any questions about earned return?
59:29 - When a student, I’m sorry, on letter D,
59:31 when a student, if we have a student who–
59:33 - Ms. Campbell, make sure your mic is on,
59:35 you’re a little quiet. - Oh, I’m sorry.
59:36 I think I left it on, it just wasn’t close enough, sorry.
59:38 Thank you.
59:40 - In letter D, when it comes to a student,
59:42 the parent legal guardian, if we have a student
59:44 that doesn’t necessarily have that person in place,
59:48 do we have an option for family therapy?
59:52 Is there something just, I mean, we do have some students
59:54 that are on their own.
59:57 - Yeah, our students will get,
1:00:00 I’m not gonna say, I think I know what happens,
1:00:03 but I’m gonna double check
1:00:04 and I’m gonna get back to you guys on that.
1:00:06 Typically, we don’t let a student who’s under 18
1:00:08 go to a hearing by themselves.
1:00:10 We offer them a– - Like a–
1:00:11 - Guardian adelita representation.
1:00:13 But let me get more specific and I’ll get you that answer.
1:00:16 - What the therapy sessions might look like
1:00:17 for a student in that situation.
1:00:18 - Okay, thank you.
1:00:19 - That’s not, sorry, a policy question.
1:00:21 Just wondered what we do in that situation.
1:00:24 - Ms. Moore, on the drug testing,
1:00:26 so does this mean we will not test them at all
1:00:29 while they’re at the ALC?
1:00:31 - They get tested.
1:00:32 They don’t get tested when they first arrive.
1:00:34 We spent a lot of money testing kids
1:00:36 when they first arrive, when we caught them–
1:00:37 - Which doesn’t make much sense
1:00:39 if we just caught them using drugs
1:00:40 ‘cause it’s gonna be positive. - That’s exactly right.
1:00:42 That’s exactly right.
1:00:43 So it was no big surprise to us
1:00:45 how many positive tests we got when they first arrived.
1:00:47 So we test them at the end.
1:00:49 This could be anywhere, an earned return could be anywhere
1:00:52 between like four and a half weeks and nine weeks.
1:00:54 So, you know.
1:00:56 - Are we doing, I know previously,
1:00:58 we would test periodically.
1:01:00 So my kids are smart, right?
1:01:04 If they know the drug test is in three weeks,
1:01:08 so we’re not,
1:01:09 I feel like, I know people are listening,
1:01:12 but even if we’re not going to test,
1:01:14 we shouldn’t tell them we’re not going to test.
1:01:16 (laughing)
1:01:17 Bold and clear in our policy so that,
1:01:20 maybe they’ll stay clean.
1:01:22 Anybody?
1:01:24 - We can assume they don’t read policy
1:01:26 and just tell them you’re going to be tested at some point.
1:01:30 - Well, why would we put in policy
1:01:31 exactly when the tests are coming?
1:01:34 That’s, I guess, my question.
1:01:38 - Can’t that be more of a procedural thing?
1:01:40 And in policy, we just say you will be tested.
1:01:42 - I don’t think it says the time, does it?
1:01:45 Oh, within three weeks of returning.
1:01:48 - So if you’re six months at the ALC,
1:01:50 you could be drug using the whole time you’re at the ALC.
1:01:55 - Well, they wouldn’t be eligible for earned return
1:01:57 if they’re there for six months.
1:01:58 That’s a whole different category of kid.
1:02:00 Earned return is, you’re basically back in your school
1:02:03 between four and a half weeks and nine weeks.
1:02:05 - The semester.
1:02:06 - Yeah. - Or a quarter.
1:02:07 - A quarter, even. - Yeah, a quarter.
1:02:08 - A quarter, mm-hmm.
1:02:09 - So I can take out kind of some of the defining language
1:02:13 and just say you will be drug tested during this time,
1:02:15 both at the ALC and at the homeschool, and leave it open.
1:02:19 - This is just our policy.
1:02:21 This is, there’s no statute language regarding.
1:02:24 - There is, I don’t believe that is in statute language.
1:02:27 I believe that is our policy,
1:02:29 but I’ll double check that, too.
1:02:30 - Okay, thank you.
1:02:36 - Ms. Moore, I’m gonna interrupt very briefly
1:02:38 before we continue to move through the policy.
1:02:41 Our board meeting is scheduled to start at 9.30,
1:02:44 and we are quickly approaching that.
1:02:47 With the okay of the board,
1:02:48 I would like to at least finish discussion on this policy,
1:02:51 and then we can adjourn the policy session,
1:02:54 go to our board meeting, come back to our policy session.
1:02:58 Does that work for you guys?
1:02:59 - Yes. - Okay.
1:03:00 Thank you, Ms. Moore, go ahead.
1:03:01 - Sure.
1:03:04 Finally, anything to do with out-of-state conduct,
1:03:07 that is just straight NEOLA language.
1:03:08 We had language in there.
1:03:10 It wasn’t NEOLA.
1:03:11 NEOLA says basically the same thing,
1:03:13 but if a student comes from out-of-state
1:03:15 and is under an expulsion,
1:03:16 we have the right to upheld that expulsion
1:03:18 and/or have a hearing,
1:03:20 and that’s basically what that language says.
1:03:22 Is there any questions about that?
1:03:27 All right.
1:03:29 Any questions in general?
1:03:33 I’ll be taking, go ahead.
1:03:34 - I have one quick question,
1:03:36 and it’s not really specific to policy,
1:03:38 but more to process going forward.
1:03:40 Mr. Gibbs, we had spoken previously
1:03:42 when we were talking about the changes
1:03:43 to the expulsion process,
1:03:44 about some changes to our forms as well
1:03:46 that may help to streamline.
1:03:49 Have you had an opportunity to work with Dr. Sullivan on that?
1:03:51 - I’ve gotten the samples that I will share
1:03:53 with Dr. Sullivan to work on those forms.
1:03:57 - Okay, super, thank you.
1:03:59 All right, if we could,
1:04:01 we are going to recess our policy session for about,
1:04:06 well, we’re recessing the policy session.
1:04:08 We’re gonna take about a five-minute break,
1:04:09 and then we will come back and convene our board meeting.
1:04:13 So we will be back at 9.35.