Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 (upbeat music)
0:30 (upbeat music continues)
5:43 - Good afternoon.
5:44 The April 12th, 2022 board work session is now in order.
5:47 Paul, roll call, please.
5:49 - Ms. Belfer.
5:50 - Present.
5:50 - Ms. McDiggle.
5:51 - Present.
5:52 - Ms. Jenkins.
5:53 - Present.
5:54 - Ms. Campbell.
5:55 - Present.
5:55 - Mr. Susan.
5:56 - Present.
5:57 - Please stand for the pledge.
6:01 - I pledge allegiance to the flag
6:03 of the United States of America
6:05 and to the Republic for which it stands,
6:08 one nation under God, invisible,
6:11 with liberty and justice for all.
6:20 - All right.
6:21 During this afternoon’s work session,
6:22 we will be reviewing three policies for board discussion
6:26 and or suggested revisions.
6:29 We do not have public comment at today’s meeting.
6:32 The public will have the opportunity
6:33 to speak on these items at the April 26th work session
6:36 when they are brought forward
6:37 for rural development and public hearing.
6:40 We are going to start with board policy 0169.1,
6:43 public participation at board meetings.
6:46 Joining board members wish to discuss this policy
6:48 and or make a suggestion for revisions.
6:51 Ms. Jenkins.
6:54 - So I have a question because we’ve kind of gone too far.
6:59 I’ve kind of gone over this a million times,
7:01 but after reading this revision,
7:03 which I had no problem with, I agree with,
7:07 I just don’t really understand where we started
7:11 and where we ended.
7:12 So this process has started where a majority
7:15 of board members wanted to revise this policy
7:18 in order to kind of focus our board meetings back
7:21 to what their purpose is, is to do our board business.
7:25 And originally it was proposed to remove non-agenda items.
7:29 And then it was proposed to keep non-agenda items,
7:31 but then to take the cameras off.
7:34 And then now we’re proposing to extend the time again
7:37 for those non-agenda items.
7:42 Everyone knows I voted against originally
7:43 the restriction of it, turning the cameras off.
7:46 I wasn’t for any of that stuff.
7:47 But when I’m reading this now, this revision,
7:50 I just don’t understand why we’re making it so complicated.
7:54 If we’re gonna go back to where it’s equal amount of time
7:57 or no more than one another, whatever,
8:00 why are we not just putting it all back together in one spot
8:03 with the tiered ranking system that we’ve created
8:06 with the one to 10 speakers and so on?
8:09 ‘Cause I feel like this is just super complicated
8:11 for no reason.
8:12 And I know how we got here,
8:14 ‘cause it was kind of like a circular process,
8:17 but I don’t see the value in them being separate.
8:23 - Thank you, Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Campbell.
8:27 This is the most recent revision for my suggestion.
8:31 So I think one of the things that we wanted to do first,
8:35 just to clarify, the original policy that we had
8:38 before we actually didn’t allow for non-agenda speakers,
8:43 our original policy previous to October,
8:46 whenever the first revision was, we just always did it.
8:50 And so it was to clarify that, yes,
8:52 we wanna hear from people who are speaking off the agenda,
8:55 but we moved them to the end.
8:57 Cameras, no cameras, we worked through some of that
8:59 as far as that was a compromise.
9:00 Where I think, going back to this,
9:02 we’re not going back to where we were,
9:04 because we still have the tiered system.
9:06 And what that for me does is keeps our board meetings
9:11 running more efficiently.
9:12 If we were to have, just think back to,
9:17 I was running through some old board meetings,
9:18 you know, this board or something,
9:20 ran into one where we had 100 and something speakers.
9:23 That was a special meeting, so we could make our own rules,
9:26 we made it one minute at a time.
9:27 But let’s just say we have a big night,
9:30 and we have 30, 40, 50 speakers.
9:33 Previous to the change we’ve made here,
9:36 that would have been two and a half hours plus
9:38 of public comment, right?
9:40 It makes it harder for even the people
9:42 who are waiting to speak.
9:43 So having the tiered system of the 321
9:45 just means we can get through everybody.
9:47 We could do like the legislature does,
9:49 and just say, we’re gonna hear this many people were done,
9:51 or some other organizations, and that’s it.
9:55 Sometimes they get down to, you get 45 seconds,
9:57 or whatever their time limits are.
10:00 But I think this, to me this is reasonable
10:04 to have it tiered, so that if we,
10:05 you know, we can get through the business.
10:07 I still think the idea of having them
10:09 at different times is good,
10:10 because that keeps a focus on why we’re here.
10:13 And that is to take care of our business.
10:15 And those things, to hear those people first,
10:17 and get the voting done.
10:20 Then the non-agenda still, things that we’re not
10:22 gonna address at that meeting that night,
10:25 we still wanna hear them.
10:26 To me, adding this graduated time,
10:28 going from one minute to potentially three minutes,
10:32 and most of the time it would be three minutes.
10:34 ‘Cause we haven’t had more than,
10:37 whatever I told you guys last time,
10:38 I think we had one meeting where we had 12 people sign up
10:40 for the non-agenda, since we started the new policy.
10:44 And so, most of the time it’s gonna be maximum
10:46 of 30 minutes for people at the end,
10:48 ‘cause we value what they have to say.
10:50 And that’s one thing we’ve been,
10:53 the criticism we’ve dealt with,
10:55 which I want us to hear, is that we’re only giving students,
10:59 bus drivers, parents, whatever groups have come,
11:02 that one minute at the end, and it’s not a lot.
11:06 And now that we’ve, my waiting ‘til now,
11:08 and kind of just honestly it was just seeing
11:10 how things were going is why I brought this up
11:12 and said, you know what, I think we should tweak this again.
11:14 Our policies can be tweaked as often as we want,
11:17 because we own them, and we should own them.
11:19 We’re gonna take ownership of them,
11:22 because it does fall under responsibility,
11:24 but also because we’re the ones
11:25 who’ve had our hands all over them.
11:26 So, that’s where I think we’re going.
11:29 So, we’re not going back to where we were,
11:32 because the graduated system,
11:33 and I understand the confusion,
11:34 and Paul did a great job writing out paragraph F,
11:37 or letter F under,
11:41 two, A, little two, F.
11:47 Giving an example,
11:48 because that was the part that was complicated.
11:50 But I still wanted to keep the,
11:52 my intention was to keep the agenda items
11:55 as the ultimate importance,
11:57 and so that people don’t get more time
11:59 to speak off topic than on topic.
12:01 So, does that answer your question?
12:05 - Yeah, so I think it was,
12:06 I think you might have misunderstood
12:07 what I was saying about going back.
12:08 I don’t mean that we’re going back to where we were.
12:11 I feel like we’ve almost came full circle
12:14 in many parts of it.
12:16 And so, I agree with the tiered system,
12:18 because it does keep the focus on the board,
12:20 on the meeting, the board business.
12:23 I just think it’s silly to have them separate,
12:26 have this really explanatory clause
12:28 of how one can’t be bigger than the other.
12:30 And to be perfectly honest,
12:32 we really haven’t had many speakers, right?
12:34 Those scenarios where we had those meetings
12:36 with hundreds of people are not every single board meeting.
12:40 And it’s true, we have people sitting here
12:42 for an entire board meeting to speak on the non-agenda item.
12:44 And so, if we’re constantly making these revisions
12:47 because we feel like there’s value in what they have to say,
12:50 and they have the right to come here and say it,
12:52 I don’t know why we’re keeping them separate.
12:54 If we’re gonna put them on the same graduated scale,
12:56 we might as well just keep them back together
12:58 where they were and keep the graduated scale
12:59 that we’ve created.
13:02 - Go back just one more.
13:03 And that was that before we put that policy in place,
13:06 we were, because of the number of people that we’re having,
13:08 we were already moving the non-agenda speakers
13:10 to the end of the meeting before we put that policy on,
13:13 if you remember that for a few months when it got long,
13:17 the chair, Ms. Dewey was, let me spell for a second,
13:20 would go ahead and just go through.
13:23 And we voted each time to go ahead and put those at the end
13:25 because we had so many.
13:27 So we were kind of already doing that in practice
13:28 before we wrote it down in policy.
13:31 I hear ya.
13:32 - Right, when there were so many.
13:37 - Ms. Dewey, Mr. Stephens, is there a–
13:39 - Just a few things, just a few.
13:41 I like the graduated speaking.
13:44 I think that makes a whole lot of sense.
13:45 And Mr. Gibbs, thank you for putting
13:48 a little explanation in there too.
13:51 I’m gonna agree that non-agenda items should be at the end
13:54 because I would like us to get through our business.
13:57 And then people that wanna speak to non-agenda items
14:01 will be at the end of our business.
14:04 Irene, remember days when we didn’t get through our business
14:07 until maybe 10 o’clock at night or 11 o’clock at night.
14:11 So and who’s to say that that won’t happen again?
14:14 So I kind of would like the agenda items to be at the end,
14:18 non-agenda items to be at the end.
14:20 So I like how it is that.
14:27 - So one of the things that I, when I look at it,
14:29 is we are creating a policy to reduce the amount of time
14:38 that individual is coming in to reduce the amount of time
14:41 that we are here as far as a school board.
14:43 I am in favor of, like you said,
14:46 moving the non-agenda down.
14:47 That’s good ‘cause it properly keeps it inside there.
14:50 But I feel that the way that a lot of the movement through,
14:55 whether you’re on the right or the left,
14:57 that there’s a high amount of individuals that are coming in
15:00 and I feel that we should give them
15:02 all the equal amount of time.
15:03 So I mean, I love the aggregate,
15:06 the policy that we’re sitting here where you have first 10
15:09 and the second 10 and all that stuff.
15:11 But for me, it’s just the perception of we’re trying
15:13 to reduce the amount of time
15:15 because we just don’t wanna be here that way.
15:17 And I understand that that’s maybe not what’s going on here,
15:20 but it’s the perception that’s outside in the community.
15:23 The one thing that I would say is,
15:25 is move the agenda down to the non-agenda items down.
15:29 Give them, get away with the one minute, two minute,
15:33 three minute and let people speak.
15:34 And if we’re here for a couple hours,
15:35 we’re here for a couple hours.
15:37 And we allow them each the equal amount of time to do so.
15:40 The other thing I would love to do if we didn’t do that
15:44 is to actually allow that if there’s a board member
15:48 puts up for discussion an item,
15:50 that that can be moved towards discussion items
15:52 so that the individuals that are here,
15:54 and mind you remember, we put a bus driver agenda item
15:59 on the discuss and we had bus drivers
16:01 that were out in the courtyard
16:03 that were trying to come in to speak, right?
16:05 And there was not an opportunity.
16:06 They came in, they got one minute.
16:08 And I think that’s a disservice to our members.
16:12 So if one of our school board members
16:15 puts an agenda item up onto the discussion,
16:18 that that should be added to the three minutes
16:20 that’s given to the individuals
16:21 that are part of the agenda item.
16:25 And I was pretty consistent with what I’ve said
16:27 in the last couple minutes.
16:29 - Can I ask Mr. Gibbs a quick question?
16:31 Mr. Gibbs, if a board member puts something on the agenda
16:33 as discussion item, that may not give the two week notice or–
16:39 - Discussion items aren’t being voted on.
16:41 - Okay.
16:42 - That’s why it’s not a proposal before the board.
16:44 It’s just discussion.
16:45 - Okay.
16:46 - That’s why it is not in the agenda for the on agenda topic.
16:49 - Okay, that’s what I wanted to understand.
16:50 - We made the exception for the information on policies.
16:54 - Thank you.
16:55 - But whether it’s on the agenda item or not, Mr. Gibbs,
16:58 it still is not a violation of law
17:00 that we allow the individuals that we put a board discussion
17:03 on speak to that discussion, right?
17:05 - No, you guys can certainly allow them
17:07 to talk for three minutes if you wanted to.
17:09 It’s just not a proposal for the board
17:10 that triggers statute.
17:12 - Right.
17:13 So we would not be in violation of anything,
17:14 we would just allow.
17:18 - I have a question.
17:19 So Mr. Gibbs, do we still have the ability
17:23 in our policy to make the decision?
17:28 Can we go back to where we had the ability
17:30 to make the decision to move non-agenda items
17:33 to the end of, and what would constitute that ability?
17:38 - You mean like if there were a lot of people?
17:40 Yeah, you can always move to do it.
17:42 I’ve left the flexibility in the policy
17:44 so that if the board wishes to have any kind of maneuvering
17:47 or extend time, whatever, then it can vote to do that.
17:51 - So for instance, if we put them back together,
17:54 non-agenda and agenda, so that they’re all being heard
17:56 in the meeting, and there’s some crazy hot topic
18:00 where we have a lot of people that wanna speak
18:01 to a specific item on the agenda,
18:03 we’re gonna be aware of it.
18:04 We can make the choice to give those people time
18:08 by removing the non-agenda.
18:10 - Yes.
18:12 - So I don’t think it’s just the perception
18:19 that we’re reducing the time here,
18:21 ‘cause I really don’t blame people who feel that way,
18:25 especially ‘cause we keep going back to the table,
18:26 back to the table, back to the table with it.
18:31 We have people taking polls up here sometimes
18:33 when we’re gonna leave, and people see that.
18:36 And I just personally believe we don’t even,
18:41 I agree with Mr. Susan, if it’s on the discussion
18:43 and there’s people here to speak to it
18:45 and they know that the discussion was happening,
18:46 it didn’t happen in the meeting,
18:48 they should be able to speak to it.
18:50 But the way to avoid that would be just putting
18:52 the non-agenda items back with the agenda items
18:53 and just valuing whatever’s on there.
18:55 Because I think the difficult part with allowing
18:58 the discussion to be considered part of the agenda
19:00 versus non, it gives power to school board members
19:04 individually to make it more important than something else
19:08 that someone has to talk about.
19:09 And I don’t believe we have that right of power.
19:12 So in order to kind of meet in the middle there,
19:16 I really think putting them back together
19:17 would just kind of solve that problem automatically.
19:22 And again, when it comes to the tiered system,
19:26 that was the whole purpose of coming to the table
19:28 in the first part about this policy,
19:30 which again, the majority of school board members agreed to.
19:36 I mean, not every governing body
19:38 even has a three-minute public comment.
19:40 So we can’t control how many people show up.
19:42 And honestly, I feel like the last popular board meetings
19:45 that we had, we don’t even, when you put them together,
19:47 I feel like sometimes we haven’t even gotten
19:49 over the numbers.
19:51 I don’t know, I just, I think it would make it easier.
19:55 I think it gives people more of an opportunity to speak,
19:57 to feel heard, to not feel that perception
19:59 of making the meeting less transparent.
20:05 And just kind of put some trust back into the community
20:08 that we are transparent, we aren’t listening,
20:10 we are here to listen to them.
20:12 I think it still serves the overall purpose, though,
20:15 of focusing on board this by kind of reining it
20:18 in a little bit, I just, I don’t know,
20:21 I feel like we’re kind of going in circles.
20:23 And honestly, I feel like if we move forward with this
20:26 the way it is, we’re gonna come back to the table again.
20:28 I guarantee there’s gonna be, when it’s put into practice,
20:30 there’s gonna be a question of,
20:32 well, is that an agenda item, is it not?
20:37 I don’t know, I don’t know.
20:38 It’s just, I think this is complicated for no reason.
20:40 And I think we should just put everyone back together
20:42 and leave the tier system and see how that goes.
20:48 - Well, I have, we’ll see where everybody wants to go on that.
20:56 The one thing that I had question about,
20:59 which may be a moot issue if we go in the direction
21:01 that Ms. Jenkins is suggesting, is the verbiage
21:06 on taking speakers in the order they are received,
21:09 because we do have a little glitch with that
21:11 if someone signs up for agenda comment,
21:14 and then it’s not agenda comment,
21:16 and then I move it to the non-agenda comment,
21:19 I’m no longer taking them in the order that it was–
21:23 So–
21:24 - ‘Cause you’re bouncing them,
21:25 and then we don’t know who signed up first.
21:27 - Right, and so then,
21:31 but depending on which way you guys decide to go
21:33 on the policy, then that may be a moot issue,
21:36 because then we would take them in the order
21:38 they were received, unless we moved non-agenda items
21:42 to the end of the meeting.
21:43 So I think that’s an easy verbiage change.
21:44 - Where’s the part that you talked about?
22:04 I don’t think that’s necessarily written into the policy,
22:06 is it, just what we’ve been doing in practice?
22:08 - You can vote to change your policy,
22:10 but it does say the time period may be extended
22:12 by vote of the board.
22:13 - Right, right.
22:15 - Well, and I think that’s in there
22:16 from when the policy used to say,
22:18 we’re only gonna hear 30 minutes of public comment,
22:20 and we’ve always voted for it.
22:23 So just a couple things.
22:26 I hear the perception about, it’s just about staying longer,
22:29 but I just want to remind all of us
22:32 that it’s not about, oh, the board doesn’t want
22:35 to stay late, and I know the perception’s out there,
22:38 but the truth is, it’s all the staff who have to be here,
22:42 right, and the people who are waiting to talk,
22:44 because how many times have we come to the end of that,
22:49 and a couple of people who signed up,
22:51 they’ve already left by then because it got late,
22:53 and they didn’t want to stick it out.
22:56 And so going to the shorter amount of time
23:00 is not actually about at all the board getting home
23:04 before their favorite show, whatever it may be,
23:07 or before Chick-fil-A closes.
23:08 - Do we have favorite shows?
23:09 - I don’t know, what are shows, who has time for shows?
23:14 I think we do preserve the idea of equal time,
23:17 and maybe shorter time, but we do preserve the idea
23:19 of equal time with the tiered system,
23:21 ‘cause everybody, whatever the minute limit may be
23:24 for the night, everybody’s getting that same minute limit.
23:29 So as far as the discussion item goes,
23:31 I’m gonna continue to object to that,
23:33 and I, and not to say that someone on the board currently
23:38 would do this, but we have to think about these policies
23:40 outlive us, unless they’re revised again,
23:42 and they’re potentially, we add discussion items
23:48 all the way up to the day of,
23:50 and sometimes during the meeting,
23:51 that wouldn’t be advertised,
23:52 but if a board member the morning of emailed Tammy
23:55 and said, “Hey Tammy, can you put this on discussion
23:57 “for tonight,” that has been our practice.
23:59 Other boards actually don’t do that, it’s my understanding.
24:02 Some of them, like the chair and the superintendent
24:04 have to, or they have a committee or whatever,
24:05 what gets approved to be on the agenda,
24:07 but we’ve been pretty flexible and open
24:10 and collegial about that, we add it on there.
24:12 If a board member were to do that,
24:14 and then let whatever group know we’re talking about it,
24:17 but the other board members don’t have,
24:19 maybe there’s another perspective,
24:20 and then only one perspective gets spoken.
24:22 So I just think, I understand where you’re going with that,
24:25 but part of, actually the night that the bus drivers came,
24:29 and they had to wait ‘til the end,
24:30 and they only got one minute,
24:31 that was something that was sticking in my,
24:32 that was the only reason, but that was something
24:33 that was gonna stick in my mind when I,
24:35 before I suggested this change for us to go back
24:38 so they, the non-agenda could get more time.
24:40 I just, I don’t, I think that could lead to,
24:44 I think it could be abused, honestly,
24:46 just to be completely honest, and so,
24:49 and I hear about the agenda, non-agenda,
24:51 I am not hearing you, Ms. Jenkins,
24:54 but I go back to what is important,
24:59 and in the same way that what I just said could be,
25:02 I feel it could be abused,
25:03 I feel like the non-agenda agenda could be abused,
25:05 because if we have a bunch of people come to talk to us
25:09 about something that’s not on the agenda,
25:11 and so all of a sudden,
25:12 now everybody’s only gonna get one minute,
25:13 but someone came about something that we’re going to vote on,
25:15 that we, by statute, have to hear their input before we vote,
25:20 then all of a sudden, their time gets limited to one minute.
25:22 I just, to me, the priority is there
25:24 of agenda versus non-agenda, so that’s, you know,
25:27 I, with the exception of what you just shared
25:32 a while ago as far as the time,
25:34 I don’t know what we need to do with that timestamp,
25:38 whatever, where we put people,
25:40 to put them in the order that was received,
25:42 I think we can be within reason, honestly,
25:44 because if you sign up for agenda and you’re confused,
25:46 or maybe intentionally thought-off topic or whatever,
25:50 and you get bumped, you get bumped, so,
25:54 but I would, my preference would be
25:56 just stick to that as written.
25:59 - Can I get clarification on the abused part?
26:03 How would this be used to abuse?
26:05 I’ve heard it got thrown out a couple times,
26:06 just wanted an explanation, if you can.
26:09 - Sure, that’s okay.
26:12 I just think if a board member wanted,
26:15 and like I said, I’m not saying one of us,
26:17 but this outlives us, if a board member wanted
26:19 to get a lot of things stirred up on a certain topic,
26:24 they can let people know, hey, I want this,
26:28 you know, have everybody in this group,
26:30 whatever group, you know, come and bombard
26:32 the school board member with this point of view,
26:35 because I’m gonna put it on for discussion,
26:36 and it makes it agenda.
26:39 I don’t think that’s fair,
26:43 especially when there might be groups
26:45 with opposing views, or individuals with opposing views
26:47 who didn’t even know, so I just don’t think
26:51 that’s a good idea, and not a good look for us,
26:54 especially with transparency.
26:57 - So, let me just follow up with that question
26:59 to you, Ms. Campbell.
27:01 If the opportunity was to abuse,
27:04 the individuals would still be able to speak
27:07 to the abused item, so if there’s something
27:09 that a school board member wants to put on,
27:11 they could still put it on, they could still have people
27:13 come speak to a minute, but the abuse comes
27:15 when they’re not speaking to a minute,
27:17 but to three minutes because of the time length.
27:19 That’s where I’m trying to find out.
27:20 - No, I think it’s putting it before the vote.
27:24 It’s, you know, it was a bigger deal
27:26 when we had the three minutes, the longer time
27:28 for the agenda, and the shorter time for the non-agenda.
27:31 It was a bigger deal, because then you’re giving
27:33 these people more time, even if you say,
27:36 oh, it’s agendas, now they get more time.
27:38 But in the same way as it just shared,
27:40 then they actually, if there’s a lot,
27:42 they could actually be taking away from time
27:44 from people who came to speak on the agenda,
27:47 something that we’re gonna vote on,
27:48 because then, now instead of five people
27:51 speaking to an agenda item, now maybe there’s 15,
27:53 and everybody only gets two minutes.
27:55 It’s just priority, to me, let’s just prioritize
27:57 that people are coming to speak to the agenda items, so.
28:00 And again, it’s not putting something on the agenda
28:02 for, don’t get me wrong, putting something on the agenda
28:04 for discussion is not an abuse.
28:08 The abuse, to me, comes in when we’re manipulating,
28:11 when somebody, whether a board member or a person
28:13 in the public, is manipulating the system
28:16 to try to gain greater influence to one side or the other.
28:21 That’s where I’m going.
28:23 - So I would say that the label of abuse,
28:28 or the argument that that is being abused
28:31 is based on the other school board members
28:33 that may not follow that same vote,
28:35 but just because they may not follow the same way
28:38 or think the same way doesn’t cause an abuse.
28:40 And here’s where I go, like, I think maybe
28:43 I could do a better job of explaining
28:45 the passion that I have for this.
28:47 In order for somebody to come up here and speak
28:50 for one minute on a topic, most of the time,
28:54 they’re driving to get here no less than 10, 15 minutes,
28:58 no more than 30, 45 minutes, each way.
29:01 You figure that that individual, in some cases,
29:04 has childcare, in some cases has family at home,
29:08 in some cases does a lot of different things to get here,
29:11 drives all the way here, passionately tries
29:14 to give a one-minute speech as opposed
29:16 to a three-minute speech, then drives all the way home.
29:19 And for me, after I looked at it that way,
29:22 I said, you know what, I may not agree with them.
29:25 I may think that somebody puts on the agenda something
29:28 completely ridiculous, and those people come
29:30 and they speak for three minutes.
29:33 But if somebody is willing to come here
29:34 for 30, 45 minutes at a time both ways to speak,
29:39 we could at least give them an extra couple minutes.
29:42 And that’s where my heart goes to those individuals.
29:44 And I may not agree with all the topics,
29:46 I don’t agree with some of the ones that come up,
29:48 but those individuals, I will sit here
29:51 and look at them at the stand and give them their minutes.
29:53 And I would passionately plead for us to give them their time,
29:57 and I would passionately plead to allow board members that
29:59 put up for discussion the ability for individuals
30:02 to speak for that for the three minutes.
30:06 Because I may disagree with some of the stances of some
30:10 of the other board members, but anything
30:12 that they feel that hot about to bring to the topic,
30:15 I would honor the fact that anybody
30:17 that came to speak to that, I would listen to.
30:19 I hear you.
30:20 And the intention of the change is to give people more time.
30:27 So we have essentially you prefer
30:34 to keep agenda and non-agenda separate in the policy
30:37 [AUDIO OUT]
30:45 As long as we get the three minutes on the back.
30:49 Can I ask for–
30:52 I kind of want to go off of what they were just
30:54 [AUDIO OUT]
30:57 Because I understand Mr. Susan’s position.
31:00 If the discussion items count, he
31:03 doesn’t mind if they’re separate.
31:04 Am I wrong?
31:05 I don’t want to put those first.
31:06 No, I don’t mind.
31:07 That’s what I’m thinking.
31:08 I don’t mind.
31:08 Hang on.
31:08 You asked for clarification.
31:09 I don’t mind if they’re separated
31:11 if they give the three minutes.
31:13 That’s all.
31:14 I just– the reason I’m asking and making sure
31:16 I’m not confusing where you’re standing on this
31:18 is because my perspective is I think–
31:22 I agree with Ms. Campbell.
31:23 There could be somebody that comes along one day
31:26 and does intentionally abuse it.
31:28 I mean, I think that’s an extreme case.
31:30 Where I fought with it is I just don’t believe individual board
31:32 members have the power to decide what’s more
31:35 important to discuss that night.
31:36 And so to eliminate that problem and confusion,
31:39 but also provide the opportunity to speak as equally
31:43 as an important agenda item, if we just put them back together
31:46 with the tiered system, then we could potentially
31:48 have people coming to speak on that discussion item earlier
31:52 in the meeting, being heard sooner,
31:55 and also valuing that discussion that will be happening later.
32:00 I personally just think that’s the simplest solution.
32:03 The one thing that I’m a little nervous–
32:05 never mind that I don’t think we have the power as board members
32:07 individually to decide what’s more important than the other.
32:10 I am nervous that it will cause more animosity
32:13 for no reason in the community if it
32:16 is perceived that somebody is doing it for that reason,
32:19 even if it’s not the intention.
32:21 I just think it’s an issue for no reason for us to have.
32:24 And so if we just put them together,
32:26 it kind of solves the issue that Mr. Susan is bringing up.
32:31 And again, especially if it’s something
32:32 with it is our employees and they are driving here
32:35 after work, they don’t have to sit here two or three hours
32:38 to have their voice on.
32:41 So I’ll just throw a crazy idea out.
32:50 I support moving the non-agenda [AUDIO OUT]
32:55 for all the reasons about our ability [AUDIO OUT]
33:01 to your point, Ms. Campbell, not about us getting out of here
33:04 at a reasonable time.
33:07 But I do think that it’s important for us
33:09 to make sometimes challenging decisions while we are fresh,
33:14 as opposed to sitting through five hours of public comment
33:17 and then making really difficult decisions.
33:22 Because sometimes it does get very complicated
33:24 as we work for issues.
33:26 But I wonder if there isn’t a compromise between all
33:30 of the things that have been discussed to say that we will
33:32 take 30 minutes of public comments in the beginning.
33:38 And if we have more than 30–
33:40 with the tiered system that we have, right?
33:44 If we have more than 30 minutes of public comment,
33:47 then we will go to the tiered system for agenda item speakers
33:51 and move non-agenda item speakers
33:52 to the end of the meeting.
33:55 And that way–
33:56 [INAUDIBLE]
33:59 Yeah, so if we have, say, it’s not
34:02 going to be in effect at tonight’s meeting,
34:04 obviously, because we’re not through policy revision.
34:06 If at tonight’s meeting we had 10 people would be 30 minutes,
34:12 right?
34:12 Total non-agenda.
34:14 Total, yeah, total non-agenda and agenda.
34:18 So that would be 10 speakers.
34:21 If we have more than 10 speakers,
34:24 then it would go to the two minute,
34:27 because we have the tiered system in place.
34:32 At most, we would have 30.
34:34 And then beyond 30 minutes, if we
34:38 are going to go beyond 30 minutes of public comment
34:40 at the beginning of the meeting, then we automatically
34:43 move all non-agenda speakers to the end of the meeting.
34:46 That eliminates, I think, the price in both directions,
34:52 because we could allow people to speak earlier in the meeting.
34:55 But we would also have that caveat in there
34:57 so that if we are heavy on speakers, they automatically–
35:01 it’s basically what we did before,
35:04 but we would put it into policy, and we would have the [AUDIO
35:09 OUT]
35:10 I have a question.
35:11 So OK, so let me just throw out–
35:15 just to make sure that I’m clear and we’re all clear.
35:18 I have it written down there somewhere.
35:20 OK, so on– so one night in December,
35:24 we had eight total speakers, three agenda, non-agenda.
35:27 So a night like that, that’d be less than 30 minutes.
35:29 You could hear everybody up front.
35:33 Back in February, we had a night where
35:35 we had 17 total, five agenda, 12 non-agenda.
35:38 So we would go ahead and hear the three–
35:42 the five on the agenda for three minutes each,
35:45 and then we’d go down to two, or everybody–
35:48 And then we would move the non-agenda.
35:50 So we would hear those five for three,
35:52 and then however many we’ll fill the rest of the 30 minutes.
35:57 But that’s what I’m saying.
35:58 Would the non-agenda people get two because there were 12
36:00 of them, or will they get–
36:01 The way I understand what she’s saying,
36:03 it would be you take the total number, and then you move.
36:06 You have one tiered system, and then you’re
36:08 just separating the agenda from the non-agenda speakers.
36:12 So in that case, if we had 40 people total coming to speak
36:15 on agenda and non-agenda, then everybody,
36:17 regardless of what the split is, everybody gets one,
36:20 and we’ll hear the 30 people up front.
36:22 Well, I think we can handle that any way.
36:24 I mean, I hear the importance to you
36:26 of prioritizing the agenda speakers.
36:29 So I think that we certainly could make it such
36:31 that the agenda speaker–
36:33 we look at the total number of agenda speakers
36:35 and the total number of non-agenda speakers
36:38 and break it down that way so that the agenda speakers,
36:41 if there are fewer of them, are getting the three minutes
36:44 to speak.
36:46 Right, if the breakdown of 40 people is eight and 32,
36:49 we’re still three minutes each and one minute.
36:55 That sounds more complicated.
36:58 Well, it is somewhat complicated.
37:00 I understand, for example, the meetings where we only
37:03 had eight people total.
37:04 It totally would make sense to go ahead and just hear them
37:07 all at the beginning rather than let those–
37:10 because it’s 30 minutes, right?
37:11 And eight people times three is 24.
37:13 I mean, that’s reasonable to go ahead and fill in that time.
37:18 I might just throw something out there.
37:21 So what do we do?
37:23 So not we, it’s you.
37:28 You’re the chair at this moment.
37:29 So what are you going to do if we
37:32 have people come to speak to the agenda, and they do,
37:34 and they get their three minutes,
37:36 and then they come and speak to non-agenda,
37:38 and they get three more minutes, but they actually
37:40 continue to speak on agenda?
37:43 So that puts you in a kind of a predicament
37:45 there to either shut it down because it’s not a non-agenda,
37:50 or do you continue to let it happen?
37:53 I just feel like, again, it’s like these muddy waters
37:55 that we’re creating for no reason.
37:57 Well, that’s why I say if we take–
38:00 if we’re within that 30 minutes, if we take them
38:02 all in the beginning, people wouldn’t sign up
38:04 for an agenda and a non-agenda.
38:07 They would sign up and say, this is what I’m discussing, right?
38:11 And then during the time that they’re
38:13 speaking to the agenda item, if they’re speaking to something
38:16 non-agenda, it’s still within their three minutes.
38:18 We’re just not going to address it.
38:20 I guess, but how would we manage that in the beginning, right?
38:22 So they come to the meeting, and they sign up outside.
38:24 They’re signing up.
38:26 Aren’t they technically signing up on two different–
38:29 I don’t know.
38:29 I don’t even see the form.
38:30 You see it.
38:31 Currently, they are.
38:32 But we don’t have to–
38:36 we could still have them sign up as agenda or non-agenda,
38:38 because I get the topics that they’re planning to discuss.
38:41 But what if we have 150 speakers one night?
38:44 I mean, then you’re going to sit there before the meeting
38:47 and have to figure out who’s who.
38:50 It was already done, but yeah.
38:52 Well, they take care of that outside.
38:53 They determine who’s agenda and who’s non-agenda.
38:56 So it would just be a matter of only allowing
38:58 them to sign up on one form, not allowing them to sign up
39:01 on both forms, I think.
39:02 Again, I just want to throw it out there,
39:04 because I feel like it’s a muddy watery situation for no real
39:07 purpose.
39:09 And again, potential angst and confusion.
39:13 And I just want to throw it out there.
39:15 Any changes can be communicated.
39:17 Mr. Gibson, I actually had this conversation.
39:20 So I was like, no, I didn’t want to muddy the water.
39:23 So the upside of just saying, you just sign up once.
39:28 And if you sign up for the agenda,
39:30 but you also speak non-agenda, you
39:31 can just spit it in your three minutes
39:33 or however many minutes you get.
39:34 The upside to that is the chair doesn’t
39:36 have to play a referee and constantly go,
39:39 oh, you’re getting off the top.
39:40 Just let them have the three minutes.
39:42 So that’s the upside.
39:44 The downside is that, again, the potential for abuse–
39:49 I’m going to sign up to speak on the agenda.
39:52 I’m going to speak on an agenda item for 15 seconds.
39:54 And then I’m going to spend the other 2 minutes and 45 seconds
39:57 on non-agenda, which is going to potentially take time away
40:01 from other people.
40:03 So you know what?
40:05 At some point, there’s not a perfect system.
40:09 And their potential for abuse is always there.
40:13 So I just– and here I’m going to say abuse.
40:16 I don’t want to be like, people are, whatever,
40:19 gaming the system.
40:21 Misusing, that’s a better way of saying thank you.
40:23 There’s a potential for misuse.
40:24 There’s a potential for chaos.
40:26 It all has to be communicated clearly.
40:29 But if we were to go back, the problem
40:32 that Mr. Gibbs asked me about is that I
40:35 didn’t want people to misuse it and talk for 15 seconds
40:38 and just get more time.
40:40 But if we put them, kind of squish them back together,
40:42 then maybe that eliminates some of that.
40:44 Because there is potential.
40:45 Right now, people are speaking for three minutes
40:47 at the beginning and one minute at the end.
40:49 It could be three minutes and another three minutes.
40:53 It’s whatever their priority is going to be.
40:58 I don’t have a problem with putting them back together
41:00 within reason.
41:02 I think the point you make about being fresh
41:05 is it’s one of those things we talked about.
41:07 But I forgot that that was one of the good press
41:10 groups that were mindful of that.
41:15 I could do that.
41:16 How do we make that less complicated
41:19 than what we already have?
41:20 We’ll leave that up to Paul to figure out.
41:22 I just have a question, though, about the 30-minute thing.
41:24 So I understand what you’re saying.
41:27 But you still allow it to go over 30 minutes
41:30 if there are more agenda speakers.
41:34 Are you literally capping it at 30 minutes
41:35 and everyone gets pushed?
41:37 We have to take anyone speaking on the agenda topic prior to.
41:41 Right.
41:42 So the wording is going to be a little fun, because–
41:46 Yeah.
41:48 I’ll make it work if that’s where you want to go.
41:52 Well, OK.
41:54 So actually, I’m not sure that that’s quite accurate,
41:57 that we have to take every–
41:58 No, no, no.
41:59 That’s accurate.
42:01 I’m not sure that it’s accurate that we have to hear
42:03 every agenda speaker, because I think there’s–
42:06 Yeah, I think statute is just given a reasonable time, right?
42:11 We have always done that, and I would definitely suggest it.
42:14 But I would think if we had, for example, on agenda speakers,
42:17 we had 40 or plus people that we could take a vote of the board
42:21 to go ahead and make sure we hear everybody.
42:23 Right.
42:24 I haven’t heard anybody say we’re cutting anybody off
42:26 at any point.
42:27 It’s just separating the agenda from the non-agenda
42:30 if we have more people.
42:31 Right.
42:32 And so you don’t have two hours at the beginning.
42:35 Maybe you got an hour on the agenda topic,
42:37 and an hour at the end for non-agenda.
42:40 And I think I can work that this way.
42:42 OK.
42:42 Ms. Belford and Mr. Gibbs, it seems
42:46 that if I’m understanding the proposal correctly,
42:48 isn’t the trigger as to what happens
42:51 the number of speakers there are specifically on agenda items?
42:56 Because if there is 10, then non-agenda item speakers
43:02 are moved to the end of the meeting.
43:04 If there’s 30 speakers on agenda items,
43:08 they all stay at the beginning, and then you use your 321.
43:12 But if there is less than 10 speakers on agenda item only,
43:18 then it could move people that are not speaking on the agenda
43:22 up to the beginning.
43:23 Is that right?
43:27 I was just trying to get it straight in my head.
43:30 Yeah, so then you bring up a question of, say,
43:34 you have nine speakers.
43:38 But then what are you doing?
43:39 Are you capping at 30 minutes?
43:40 Or then are you restricting certain speakers
43:42 or giving a non-agenda item 30 minutes, and everyone else not?
43:46 Nine still within your 30 minutes.
43:49 Yeah, but what the non-agenda–
43:51 All right, I’m sorry, let me–
43:52 I don’t know, pick a different number.
43:54 Yeah, I think that–
43:55 Do you get what I’m saying?
43:56 So if there’s eight speakers with an agenda
44:00 speaking on agenda items, and there’s
44:02 five speakers for non-agenda items,
44:06 do you hear two of the non-agenda items
44:09 in the first 30 minutes?
44:10 You’re not going to end in 30 minutes.
44:13 Or do they all move to the– do those five move to the end?
44:15 And then someone gets more time than the others.
44:17 So in my head, and maybe this clarifies, simplifies,
44:22 I don’t know.
44:23 In my head, it would be if there are more than 30 minutes worth
44:28 of agenda speakers, then all non-agenda speakers
44:32 are moved to the end, right?
44:36 But they would all get the same amount of time,
44:37 because it would be on the tiered system of how
44:39 many non-agenda item speakers there are, the 321.
44:47 Did that confuse or clarify?
44:48 I think it confused.
44:49 I know what you’re saying.
44:50 So I guess, so ultimately, there really
44:54 is a limit, though, to how many non-agenda speakers will
44:57 be up.
44:59 There would have to be some kind of a limit.
45:01 In the first 30 minutes?
45:02 Right.
45:03 Yeah.
45:03 But if you– but they won’t get more–
45:06 Right, they’re not going to get more time than that.
45:08 Even if you have 10 speakers, you’re
45:09 going to have 30 minutes.
45:10 Right.
45:11 But if you have 30 agenda item speakers,
45:13 they’re speaking for one minute, and so they’re still
45:16 going to fit in the 30 minutes.
45:18 So it would be, we would just, if we exceed that time limit,
45:25 then all non-agenda item would go to–
45:30 Just as a couple of quick questions real quick.
45:35 Just remember, we are writing a policy for us,
45:38 but then also for the public to be
45:41 able to perceive and understand.
45:44 And if we’re up here going back and forth
45:46 about how it makes sense, you may
45:48 want to think about how that looks to the public
45:50 to try to make sense of it.
45:53 That was just my first thing.
45:54 The second thing is that I just want to kind of clear this out.
45:57 So we have a couple of points that we’re
45:59 getting through, non-agenda versus agenda, time periods.
46:03 If a school board discussion moves up to agenda item
46:05 or stays down below, and then separation of agenda,
46:09 non-agenda, which we had before.
46:10 Are those kind of the contentious things?
46:11 I’m just trying– because we’re like bouncing all over the place.
46:13 I know.
46:14 So right now, we are going through the non-agenda and
46:17 agenda piece, right?
46:18 So we’re going to get to, are we going to go time periods?
46:21 And we’re going to get to whether the school board
46:24 somebody puts it up for discussion.
46:25 I just wanted to have separate discussions on it
46:27 to kind of bounce around.
46:28 Is that kind of where we’re going?
46:30 We have a discussion on this one,
46:31 then we have a discussion on those three.
46:33 So non-agenda, agenda, time period,
46:35 and then school board member puts it up for discussion,
46:38 whether you guys support that or not, and why.
46:41 To be fair, I think what you said last
46:43 should actually go first.
46:44 Because you said for you, that’s kind of like a cause
46:46 and caveat for you that might kind of change what you prefer.
46:50 So I think that’s what we should probably go through first,
46:53 what the majority of the board–
46:54 It makes no difference on the pieces.
46:56 If we just have those three items
46:58 that we’re working towards, the other thing I was going to say
47:00 is I’m just still trying to get down
47:01 to the core of why we are creating all this confusion
47:04 and all these other pieces.
47:05 It is the fear of abuse and the staff’s time
47:09 that I’m hearing, right?
47:10 That there may be somebody that abuses the opportunity
47:13 to come speak, and then staff’s time.
47:15 Is there anything else that I can put up?
47:17 Everybody.
47:18 Hang on.
47:18 Sorry.
47:19 We’ll come and speak.
47:21 I think it’s also about–
47:23 If I can just write them down as you guys go.
47:25 So it’s everybody’s time?
47:27 All right.
47:27 I think it’s about equity overall.
47:30 For me, at least.
47:32 I’m concerned about making this so complicated and muddy.
47:34 Just like Mr. Susan says, if we’re
47:36 going to have difficulty figuring it out,
47:38 and we’re going to have to sit up here and figure it out
47:39 before the meeting even starts, I
47:41 think it’s really difficult for us to pretend that the public
47:44 has the opportunity to understand.
47:45 Plus, they can’t even see that list.
47:48 Again, I feel like it muddies the transparency.
47:52 But for me, when it comes to looking at what’s
47:54 in front of us right now, I just think we shouldn’t
48:00 be muddying the waters.
48:01 I think we need to make it really, really clear.
48:03 And it’s about equity of the speakers, too, right?
48:05 We want to make sure everyone has the most time that they
48:08 can possibly have to come speak to what they want to speak out.
48:12 And for me, that’s priority now.
48:17 OK, all right, I just wanted to thank you
48:20 for the clarification.
48:23 We’re on non-discussion– non-agenda versus agenda.
48:27 So let me ask something really quickly.
48:29 Is there– are any of you suggesting that we move away
48:31 from the tiered time?
48:33 I am, sorry, but OK.
48:42 The board member discussion item,
48:47 is there majority support for moving that
48:49 into our action, our agenda item?
48:54 Can we have discussion on it, if that’s OK?
48:56 Instead of just–
48:58 if I can talk real quick.
48:59 I was trying to get to the why before I could
49:01 get to any answer to it.
49:04 OK.
49:06 Right now, everybody’s come up and said abuse, staff, time,
49:09 everybody’s time, equity, right?
49:13 My argument for this is exactly what happened,
49:16 is that our school bus drivers were coming in
49:19 to try to give us a speech and try
49:20 to talk to us about a topic.
49:22 And they were deflated in the fact
49:25 that they had to sit at the back of the agenda item
49:27 and talk for one minute.
49:29 When I look back at the last six years
49:33 that I’ve been on the school board,
49:35 I will say that I can’t even remember when somebody brought
49:38 it up that I felt like it was abuse
49:40 that they were bringing it up.
49:42 May not have agreed, passionately agreed
49:44 or disagreed, but there was no abuse
49:46 that I would feel that was brought up for that.
49:48 The other thing is that the staff’s time, we can mitigate.
49:51 We can mitigate the fact that the staff comes or doesn’t come.
49:55 We can ask them.
49:56 I mean, if it’s that–
49:57 I mean, we only meet 20 plus times a year, all right?
50:00 And out of those 20 plus times a year,
50:01 we’re only seeing five, six times
50:03 that we really have these long, drawn out, past 830 meetings.
50:07 And for me, those meetings and that time period,
50:10 if you look at it–
50:11 and it’s been contentious lately,
50:13 but we go through these cycles, right?
50:15 Like you look back in history.
50:16 I would say that those don’t make up.
50:19 The fear of abuse, the worrisome for the staff time
50:22 and everybody else’s time would be
50:25 less than allowing people who travel here to speak.
50:29 And I feel truly that if a school board member,
50:32 whether I agree with them or not,
50:34 should have the opportunity to put it on discussion.
50:37 And if people see that and want to come,
50:38 then they should give input to that,
50:40 because that school board member may or may not be correct.
50:43 And I wanted to speak to the one thing, which is one member
50:50 having more power than the other.
50:52 I understand completely where that
50:54 may be a feel, because we want to work together as a group.
50:57 But when the agenda is set by the superintendent
51:01 and the chair, we as a school board
51:04 don’t get to add things to the agenda, per se,
51:07 because of the limitations.
51:08 This is the opportunity that each individual
51:10 has to bring it up.
51:11 And it might be an agenda item that we
51:13 want to hear discussion on, that each one of us
51:15 wants to hear the three minutes on.
51:17 And for me, if an employee comes in and can’t
51:19 speak for three minutes because of the rules and regulations
51:22 that we’ve put in place because we’re
51:23 afraid of abuse, staff time, everybody else’s time,
51:26 I feel that that’s a disservice to those employees.
51:29 And I feel that that’s the reason that I feel strongly
51:31 about having the school board discussion moved up
51:34 into the three minutes if we’re going to be limiting time.
51:39 Thank you for giving me a minute.
51:40 Sure.
51:41 I wasn’t running the clock on you though, Mr. Chair.
51:43 No, I know.
51:44 Thank you.
51:46 No, so I understand where you’re coming from.
51:50 Part of my concern with it, in all honesty, Mr. Susan,
51:53 is oftentimes discussion items are added at the very last–
51:58 very frequently, I get an email from–
52:02 used to be Pam, now Tammy–
52:03 saying, I have a request to add this for discussion
52:06 at tonight’s meeting.
52:06 Is that OK?
52:09 And I think that that really makes it somewhat problematic
52:15 because if we are incorporating that into our agenda speakers
52:23 and things are going on for discussion at the last minute,
52:28 as Ms. Campbell mentioned, the public
52:31 doesn’t really have opportunity to equally respond to that.
52:35 So whereas our agenda is published seven days
52:38 in advance, yes, we typically have some adjustments
52:42 to the agenda for various reasons.
52:45 But I think there is enormous potential
52:48 for an individual board member to really drive
52:52 personal agenda in that [AUDIO OUT]
52:58 And so that, quite frankly, is my concern on that,
53:02 unless we are going to say the board will not
53:05 add discussion items beyond seven days prior to the meeting.
53:08 But I don’t think that’s productive either
53:11 because there are things that come up that we sometimes
53:14 need to have discussion about.
53:15 And we’re not taking action.
53:17 They’ll come back at a different meeting
53:19 if we’re going to take some action.
53:22 But I just I think it is [AUDIO OUT]
53:28 If I can respond, the only difference
53:30 that we’re making in this is the difference
53:33 between the person at the podium speaking
53:35 for one minute or three minutes.
53:38 So the abuse, the opportunity for a board member
53:40 to put an agenda item to drive that conversation,
53:44 to have many people come, is still there.
53:46 We’re speaking specifically.
53:50 The only difference is the abuse is apparently
53:54 coming from the extra two minutes
53:57 that somebody would actually get in order to speak to this item.
54:01 I would feel– that’s all.
54:03 We’re not leaving it at one minute.
54:04 The whole point of the revisions of this policy
54:06 is to allow the non-agenda speakers to have more time.
54:09 And the only reason why they’d go down to one minute
54:11 would be if we have 30 or more speakers.
54:15 And so that was the whole point of the revision
54:17 was to give people more time.
54:18 And I appreciate that, Ms. Campbell,
54:19 but there is a stipulation that reduces the amount of time
54:22 for people based on if there’s more speakers, more time,
54:25 and everything else.
54:26 Am I not correct with that?
54:27 OK, so with that, if there’s a night that our poor school–
54:31 I mean, I’m just fired up over the bus drivers.
54:33 I’m going to be honest with you guys.
54:34 Them two sitting in the–
54:36 two bus drivers sitting inside of our courtyard got me.
54:39 And I just passionately want to drive this thing home.
54:42 Them sitting out there, because there
54:44 was all these other people coming to speak about all
54:46 these other things, right?
54:48 They came here to speak about themselves, which
54:50 is a part of our school district,
54:52 and giving them the opportunity to do so.
54:55 The difference between one minute and three minutes,
54:57 just to me, was disingenuous.
54:59 And I thought that I would fight passionately for it.
55:02 Which is why– and I appreciate that, Mr. Susan.
55:04 I do want to clarify just a couple of things
55:06 on the bus drivers, because I think
55:07 there’s been some misperception in the public.
55:11 Number one, they still got to speak.
55:15 We didn’t stop them from speaking,
55:16 unless they were not here to sign up
55:18 to speak prior to the meeting starting, which is the policy
55:21 always, right?
55:21 capacity to put them out.
55:24 Yes, so capacity is what put them outside.
55:26 It had nothing to do with speaking time.
55:29 But whether they are–
55:32 whether discussion is included in agenda or not included
55:35 in agenda, we’re still looking at three to one
55:39 on the amount of time.
55:40 And so if discussion is considered agenda
55:44 or is not considered agenda, it doesn’t change that.
55:47 And I appreciate you moving in the other direction because
55:50 of the notice.
55:50 I do.
55:51 You are 100% right.
55:53 But let me clarify so that there’s no misconception.
55:56 There was a capacity issue that put two of our bus drivers
55:58 outside.
56:00 Where the passion comes from– and I apologize
56:02 if that was a conception that was made based on my statements.
56:05 The passion that I came from was the fact
56:07 that when they stood there and they had this big speech,
56:10 and they were coming in, and they
56:12 had this big piece of paper.
56:13 And there was, I think, five of them.
56:15 And they were ready to speak.
56:16 And then all of a sudden, we said,
56:17 you have one minute because they hadn’t paid attention
56:19 to what the minutes are.
56:20 They just thought they had three minutes.
56:22 So they start getting ready to speak.
56:23 And everything– it takes a lot to come up here and speak
56:26 in front of this podium.
56:27 And when they came up to speak, they
56:28 were deflated because they said, OK, I
56:30 got to get everything that I had in three minutes
56:31 down to one minute.
56:33 And it caused that confusion.
56:35 So that’s where I was at.
56:36 And that dovetails into why the confusion
56:40 of our speaker people, people who come in to speak,
56:44 having a tiered system on the end of 30 minutes
56:46 and everything else.
56:47 People that are at home are putting together
56:48 their speeches based upon, well, I think I got three minutes.
56:51 And when they get up there, it just kind of cuts them out.
56:53 And I’ll tell you, I think part of it
56:55 is that them notifying us.
56:58 But there’s a part of public speaking
56:59 that allows the individual to feel like they’ve been heard.
57:02 And I think that when we go from making the minutes down from
57:06 three to two to one and this and that,
57:08 it kind of makes them feel like they had some more to say.
57:12 Whether we want to hear it, whether we feel about abuse,
57:14 whether we disagree or agree, I feel
57:16 like that’s where I hang my hat.
57:18 So thank you for giving me a chance to speak.
57:19 John?
57:21 Sure.
57:22 So I have a couple of–
57:24 I was writing down so that I don’t lose my track.
57:26 So I think something important for us
57:29 to think about when we’re talking about the discussion
57:32 section and bringing up discussion items
57:34 is that section, at least this is
57:37 my perception of the purpose of it,
57:39 really is like our non-agenda section as board members.
57:43 The reason we have a board meeting
57:45 is because it has to be in the sunshine.
57:46 There’s things we can’t talk about behind closed doors
57:49 unless it’s in the sunshine.
57:51 And so that discussion area, yes, we
57:53 can discuss things coming up and notify the public of stuff,
57:56 but it also serves the purpose of us discussing
57:58 amongst each other in the sunshine for the public to see.
58:01 And so the main purpose of that area
58:05 isn’t for us to bring it up so that the public can come speak
58:07 on it.
58:08 I don’t disagree with Mr. Susan.
58:11 I just don’t think that’s the main purpose of it.
58:14 But what I’m hearing from you, Mr. Susan, and again,
58:16 if I’m wrong, correct me, but I hear two different concerns.
58:20 So one of them is the time for them to speak,
58:23 but also the placement of when they’re allowed to speak.
58:26 And so again, I’m going to just reiterate,
58:28 that’s really why I don’t see the purpose of separating them.
58:30 If they’re both going to be tiered anyway,
58:33 the happy medium would be if they’re together,
58:36 then there’s no more value placed on either side.
58:43 And when it comes to the discussion I’m talking about,
58:46 that one was our staff members, and they had to sit here all day
58:49 and we avoid that now.
58:50 That doesn’t happen anymore.
58:52 They come, they’re here in the beginning.
58:54 If their time gets reduced because we
58:55 have so many speakers, it could have potentially
58:57 been reduced in the non-agenda item area anyway.
59:00 So why not eliminate that stress and that chaos
59:03 and just put everyone back together
59:05 and keep that tiered system?
59:06 Because again, the original intention
59:08 of revising this policy was just to kind of control the board,
59:11 meaning a little bit more, and kind of get directly
59:13 to the work that we’re here to do.
59:19 Miss McDougal or Miss Campbell, anything you want to–
59:25 OK.
59:25 I’m just going to stick with I want the agenda,
59:28 not agenda separate.
59:29 I do think that’s important.
59:31 And I’m going to stick with it here.
59:38 So let me run through my list again.
59:42 Mr. Susan, are you–
59:47 well, I’ll run through the list again.
59:49 OK.
59:50 Discussion–
59:50 Thank you, Miss Telford, for going through this chaos.
59:53 I appreciate it.
59:53 You’re welcome.
59:55 So discussion being part of agenda,
59:57 I’m not hearing that we have board support for that.
59:59 Is that correct?
1:00:00 Like, officially considering discussion agenda.
1:00:03 OK.
1:00:06 Time period– is there anyone other than Mr. Susan
1:00:10 that wants to move away from the tiered time period?
1:00:14 OK.
1:00:17 Agenda non-agenda– Paul, if we run with the policy
1:00:25 like it is right now, and we have agenda and non-agenda
1:00:28 separated, is there anything that would stop the chair
1:00:33 from taking a motion?
1:00:35 If we have three agenda speakers and three non-agenda speakers,
1:00:40 is there anything that would stop the board
1:00:41 from making a motion to just go ahead and hear all six
1:00:43 speakers at the beginning?
1:00:45 No.
1:00:46 OK.
1:00:47 You just have to have a motion every meeting to do it.
1:00:50 OK.
1:00:53 We did it the opposite direction, but I’m thinking it
1:00:58 may be better to, instead of making a motion to move them,
1:01:02 make a motion to include them.
1:01:04 Does that make sense?
1:01:05 So we have– in the policy that Paul added in last time,
1:01:11 the above scale time for public comment
1:01:13 is deemed by the board to be reasonable.
1:01:15 However, should a situation arise
1:01:16 that the board believes additional modifications
1:01:18 to the public comment times need to be made,
1:01:22 the board may make additional adjustments with a majority
1:01:24 vote of the board.
1:01:25 Right.
1:01:29 But I think that covers what you said.
1:01:32 So we’re not having three people wait to the end,
1:01:35 no matter how many minutes.
1:01:38 We can move it along.
1:01:40 I’m in favor of what–
1:01:43 I mean, I think, honestly, I think that would be simpler
1:01:45 for us to start putting that in practice than to try to–
1:01:51 I don’t know if Paul’s–
1:01:52 or you’re real spinning trying to figure out
1:01:54 how you get that in words, but–
1:01:56 What?
1:01:58 With the 30 minutes?
1:01:59 Yeah.
1:02:01 You guys have– I have two weeks to figure–
1:02:03 I have a week to figure it out before I have
1:02:05 to have it on another agenda.
1:02:06 So I’ll get it figured out before–
1:02:08 Well, but I think we can run with the policy the way
1:02:12 that it is and just know that it will–
1:02:15 I don’t think we have to put it in writing,
1:02:17 but if we have three here and three here,
1:02:19 we’re just going to combine them.
1:02:22 I’ll just ask– or whoever’s chair next can just say,
1:02:27 board members, we have three here and three there.
1:02:29 I’ll entertain a motion to combine.
1:02:32 Right, Paul?
1:02:34 And that keeps it a little cleaner.
1:02:36 Why didn’t you say that at the beginning?
1:02:38 Because I just had the epiphany, I don’t know.
1:02:41 I’m just kidding.
1:02:41 See, this is– we bounce ideas off each other.
1:02:44 That’s the whole point of being collaborative.
1:02:46 And I will say again, even though we’ve
1:02:48 had these long discussions multiple times now,
1:02:50 that this is still one of the most collaborative policies
1:02:53 that I’ve worked on in my four years.
1:02:55 And it may sound a little silly, but we’re not getting all
1:02:59 hot and up and yelling at people.
1:03:01 And not that we do that all the time, but working together,
1:03:05 give and take.
1:03:07 We own it.
1:03:08 Totally.
1:03:10 So are we good to move on to our next policy?
1:03:16 I’m not making any changes then.
1:03:19 I don’t think so.
1:03:20 [LAUGHTER]
1:03:21 And we’re all back, no.
1:03:25 All right, next is going to be board policy 2521,
1:03:28 instructional materials program.
1:03:31 Do any board members wish to discuss this policy
1:03:34 or make a suggestion?
1:03:35 Yes.
1:03:39 All right, how long do we have?
1:03:41 That’s so much longer.
1:03:42 I’m just guessing.
1:03:45 All right, I do have some questions, suggestions.
1:03:51 So first of all, thank you, Ms. Klein and all the people
1:03:56 who work with you to make these adjustments.
1:03:59 I was looking through the NEOLA–
1:04:04 this isn’t on my computer where it’s all tabbed
1:04:06 and I can get their pictures–
1:04:10 the NEOLA recommendations.
1:04:11 And it looks like with the changes that they made,
1:04:14 they gave option one, two, and a three for how to do this.
1:04:19 But I think we actually already had a more robust–
1:04:22 first of all, all the work that we did a couple of years ago,
1:04:25 we already had a more robust system
1:04:27 in place than what they’re even now currently proposing,
1:04:31 I would say.
1:04:33 But there were a couple of options.
1:04:35 There was one particular option that I wanted to ask about.
1:04:38 And I’m still scrolling, sorry.
1:04:44 Under option– and it’s down in the– let me see what page.
1:04:51 It’s on page 38 in the computer, on the computer packet.
1:04:54 But in the NEOLA version, there is a section.
1:04:56 I’ll just read to you, because you’ll know what it is.
1:04:58 It says, the material in question
1:05:00 and then we could have chosen maybe or may not
1:05:03 be withdrawn from use pending the committee’s recommendation
1:05:06 to the superintendent.
1:05:08 And so that was a suggestion.
1:05:11 And then when I go down to our part, which for this is T3,
1:05:18 whichever–
1:05:20 oh my gosh, why am I working against the menu?
1:05:25 Oh, right here.
1:05:26 Thank you.
1:05:28 That’s causing me problems.
1:05:31 OK.
1:05:41 [INAUDIBLE]
1:05:44 Nope, it went– sorry.
1:05:46 OK, T3, we chose, or you guys chose–
1:05:50 and I know we can revise it– to go ahead and say that we would
1:05:54 not remove them.
1:06:02 And I know there’s multiple processes.
1:06:05 There’s a little inconsistency.
1:06:06 So I wanted to make sure that we–
1:06:08 one, that we make a decision as a board on that.
1:06:11 And I have a suggestion.
1:06:13 And then two– oh, there it is, T3.
1:06:15 Challenge materials shall remain in use
1:06:17 and shall not be removed until the following informal due
1:06:20 process procedures have been completed.
1:06:23 So that was actually already in there.
1:06:25 It’s not red line, but that was what we already had.
1:06:28 But then– so then down on– OK.
1:06:39 Down below that, still T, number 4, B, 1, little e, number 6.
1:06:58 Sorry.
1:07:01 So 4B, 1, little e, number 6 says,
1:07:09 the material in question may be withdrawn
1:07:11 from use pending the committee’s determination
1:07:13 to the superintendent.
1:07:15 So my question is, that sounds like it–
1:07:19 my question is, at what point, or at any point,
1:07:21 is it that it would be withdrawn?
1:07:26 Based on the findings?
1:07:29 So even before it says pending, so it could be–
1:07:34 so if the committee is going through the process and says,
1:07:36 you know what, well, let’s go ahead and pull it
1:07:38 even before we’re done and have the report sent out
1:07:40 to the superintendent?
1:07:42 Well, the committee is based on the committee.
1:07:45 Which committee?
1:07:46 This committee, this committee, the book
1:07:49 would have to be read in its entirety.
1:07:51 The next committee comes together at that point.
1:07:56 OK.
1:07:58 But, Ms. Klein, if the–
1:08:02 someone brings it to a principal at the school–
1:08:05 Exactly.
1:08:06 –the principal can say, oh, we need to pull this now.
1:08:10 Yes.
1:08:10 And then does that end the process?
1:08:12 It does.
1:08:14 As long as it is a–
1:08:16 that was one of the things that I wanted to ask.
1:08:19 In each of these steps, whether, for example, in the IV-A
1:08:26 process, where a book is at one school
1:08:28 or it’s only being challenged at one school,
1:08:31 if they get to the end of that process–
1:08:33 that was a process that we already had.
1:08:34 We get to the end of that process,
1:08:36 and the decision is, you know what, it doesn’t need standards.
1:08:38 We are going to pull it.
1:08:40 But it says specifically that this only
1:08:42 applies to that school.
1:08:45 Is there any kind of flagging that happens?
1:08:48 Because, for example, we have some books
1:08:51 that have been put forward.
1:08:53 And either only one school had it–
1:08:55 so it sounds like it would go through this process– or,
1:08:58 by the time everybody went through it,
1:09:00 only one school left has it.
1:09:03 Then we go through the process.
1:09:05 Is there any kind of flagging and follow it or anything
1:09:07 so that other–
1:09:08 I’m trying to protect our media specialists
1:09:10 and just make a note in there somewhere that, hey,
1:09:15 if this comes up on a list of books
1:09:17 that I might want to purchase, hey, there’s a note in here
1:09:19 that this went through a book challenge, and it failed it.
1:09:22 And so I better just double check.
1:09:24 This one I may want to read.
1:09:25 I know our media specialists cannot read
1:09:27 every book in their collection.
1:09:29 I know that they read a lot of them.
1:09:31 But this may be– there needs to be, to me, some kind of–
1:09:34 just note that of what has happened in the past.
1:09:39 Even in the other points later on in the policy that say,
1:09:43 once we go through the process–
1:09:46 this was in the 4B process that it lasts for four–
1:09:49 or in the district challenge level in the 4A process–
1:09:54 that it lasts for four years.
1:09:56 Because then my question is, and then what?
1:09:58 And then is there still a note?
1:10:02 Because then– here’s where I’m coming from this.
1:10:06 And it’s been vastly misconstrued
1:10:09 in some parts of the public that this
1:10:11 is a matter of our media specialists are doing a bad job.
1:10:15 Let me just clarify.
1:10:16 I do not think our media specialists are doing a bad job.
1:10:18 I actually go from the assumption
1:10:20 that our media specialists don’t know that some of these
1:10:23 are in here– and I think that has been borne out,
1:10:25 because some of them voluntarily pulled–
1:10:27 I know some of them, the principal made the call.
1:10:29 But some of our media specialists
1:10:33 come into a collection with thousands of books.
1:10:35 And they’ve only been there for a year or two or less.
1:10:40 And some of them, I know, have been there for a long time.
1:10:42 Their collection is like the back of their hand.
1:10:44 But that’s where I’m starting with–
1:10:46 to me, I know this has been such a contentious issue.
1:10:49 But it doesn’t necessarily have to be.
1:10:51 It can be a partnership where the public comes and says,
1:10:54 you know what, hey, here’s a concern.
1:10:56 And we can take that and go through our process, which
1:11:00 we are putting into adjusting in the policy here.
1:11:05 But again, I think part of that to be
1:11:09 good stewards of this going through that
1:11:12 and our responsibility, I think we
1:11:13 need to have at least some kind of annotation made that says,
1:11:19 this book either survived or did not survive a challenge
1:11:23 process.
1:11:26 I talked to one of our media specialists–
1:11:29 list last week and who had a conversation actually with some of
1:11:30 the heads of FALET and
1:11:32 asked them, “Hey, what can you do?”
1:11:33 They were asking her, “What can we do better to help support
1:11:36 schools?”
1:11:37 And she made some suggestions about them kind of giving some
1:11:42 more data, like if a book,
1:11:44 I know sometimes it’s in there, if these were award-winning
1:11:47 books on the national level,
1:11:48 could they put what state awards, you know, how many state
1:11:51 awards did the book list because
1:11:53 that kind of helps them get an idea of the qualifications of the
1:11:57 book.
1:11:58 Could they, you know, put that it’s a mature topic or whatever,
1:12:02 so that’s on them.
1:12:03 But I think on our end, if there’s a way for us to market so
1:12:05 that we don’t have to go through
1:12:07 all of this again in four years because someone, you know, it
1:12:10 just got added to the collection
1:12:12 or it just got challenged in one school and it failed the
1:12:17 challenge, but then yet another
1:12:19 school turns around and buys the same exact book and then here
1:12:22 we are all over again.
1:12:23 I just, I’m not sure that that’s an efficient use.
1:12:25 I know one of the reasons we’re doing this was trying to make a
1:12:27 more efficient use of
1:12:27 our staff time and our committee’s time, and I’m not sure that
1:12:30 that’s an efficient use
1:12:32 of time.
1:12:33 » I can put a note in there.
1:12:40 » Is there any, and I had time to make these, so I’m going to
1:12:44 pass these to you.
1:12:46 I just, for your bedtime reading, I had, will you pass those to
1:12:54 Paul, please?
1:12:57 One, two, three, four, I should, I asked Tammy to make copies of
1:13:01 some statutes for us, 847.012,
1:13:05 which is about harmful materials.
1:13:06 I’ve read that one before, 847.001, which has the definition of
1:13:10 some of the pornography
1:13:11 terms and harmful to minors, 1006.40, which is the use of
1:13:16 instructional materials allocation
1:13:18 and instructional, talks about the process, and then 1006.28,
1:13:24 which has duties of the
1:13:26 district school board.
1:13:27 And I just want to highlight, and this, because one of the
1:13:32 things that has been said is that
1:13:34 this is the opportunity for one group of parents or one parent
1:13:37 to make a decision that’s going
1:13:39 to affect another group of parents, and the truth is, that’s
1:13:42 neither here nor there.
1:13:44 There is one entity who is responsible for the materials in our
1:13:49 libraries, and it’s us.
1:13:52 If you look at 1006.40, it says each district school board, not
1:13:56 the superintendent, not
1:13:58 the parent committee, the school board is responsible for the
1:14:01 content of all materials
1:14:03 used in a classroom otherwise made available to students.
1:14:05 Each district school board shall adopt rules and then each
1:14:08 district superintendent shall
1:14:10 implement procedures.
1:14:11 And again, in 1006.28, it says the same thing.
1:14:14 Each district school board is responsible for the content of all
1:14:16 instructional materials
1:14:17 and any other materials used in a classroom made available in
1:14:19 the school library or included
1:14:20 on a reading list.
1:14:21 And so this is our prerogative, and I would say, if there was
1:14:25 anybody who would go with
1:14:27 me, that even though I know Paul and I had this conversation
1:14:30 about the three-prong test
1:14:31 of harmful to minors and that’s why the Supreme Court won’t call
1:14:36 things out, but this is our
1:14:39 district and these are our policies, and if we wanted to add in
1:14:43 that if there is a specific
1:14:45 challenge, and this would be my recommendation, if the challenge
1:14:51 is pornography in particular,
1:14:53 that we do go ahead and pull it pending the committee’s decision.
1:14:58 I know there are some other things that could be pulled, hey, we
1:15:01 don’t think this is historically
1:15:02 accurate or whatever other reason people might have, but if –
1:15:06 because – and the reason
1:15:08 why I say that is, if you look at these statutes and half a
1:15:12 dozen more, that 847.012 is all
1:15:15 over it.
1:15:16 That is the one thing that says, okay, it has to go along with
1:15:19 the standards and all
1:15:20 that, but it also can’t have the things that are in 847.012.
1:15:25 And so it’s so specifically and so frequently mentioned in
1:15:28 statute, I think it would behoove
1:15:30 us to go ahead and make that adjustment, that if the challenge
1:15:33 is because of pornographic
1:15:35 content, then along with whatever form they have to fill out,
1:15:37 that we do go ahead and
1:15:38 pull those pending the committee’s decision at whatever level,
1:15:43 once we get to the formal
1:15:45 processes.
1:15:46 » Mr. Gibbs, do you have any concerns with that recommendation?
1:15:53 I’m guessing not, since Ms. Campbell indicated you guys had
1:15:55 already talked, but I just feel
1:15:56 like I need to – I don’t know if I talked to you on that part.
1:16:00 » She didn’t talk to me – she didn’t talk about adding that
1:16:05 kind of a caveat in there
1:16:07 for 847.012, but ultimately on the 847, to satisfy those
1:16:16 standards, it all goes back
1:16:20 to harmful minors, and it’s kind of a circular argument.
1:16:24 So you’re always going to end up, at the end of the day, under 847,
1:16:28 having to review it
1:16:29 under the harmful minors statute, and that’s kind of where we
1:16:32 were.
1:16:32 It has to meet all three prongs to be harmful to minors.
1:16:36 I mean, if it meets that and you’ve got a case that does meet
1:16:38 that and the book’s pulled,
1:16:40 then certainly it shouldn’t be anywhere else.
1:16:43 » But what I’m suggesting is it doesn’t have to – we don’t
1:16:46 have to go there.
1:16:48 We can say –
1:16:49 » Yeah, the school board sets that – can say, we don’t want
1:16:52 certain books in your thing.
1:16:54 There’s nothing there.
1:16:55 » Right, allow things.
1:16:56 And, you know, you brought up that – I think the third prong of
1:17:01 that is it has to –
1:17:02 » The entire work has to have no literary, artistic, or any
1:17:07 other value –
1:17:08 » Political?
1:17:09 » Yeah, political value to the student as the third prong.
1:17:12 That’s your really heavy prong right there.
1:17:14 And so the thought is, you know, if it’s otherwise, you know,
1:17:18 has good educational value or whatever,
1:17:22 I think it says significant – serious, serious literary,
1:17:27 artistic, political, or scientific
1:17:31 value for minors, that, you know, it’s – the whole book is this,
1:17:35 but on one page it has
1:17:36 this that you don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater.
1:17:39 I understand the argument there, but I would also say that the
1:17:43 reverse is true, that just
1:17:45 because it has a little bit of scientific, artistic content, but
1:17:49 a lot of the other stuff
1:17:51 wouldn’t make it appropriate to be on our shelves either.
1:17:54 » I’m not saying that the board deems it appropriate, I’m just
1:17:56 saying it doesn’t rise
1:17:57 to illegal content.
1:17:59 » In a legal challenge, and so that’s what I’m – yeah, in a
1:18:01 legal challenge.
1:18:02 » The school board can set what parameters around what books it
1:18:06 buys.
1:18:07 That’s fine.
1:18:08 But under the 847, which is a criminal prong there, it’s not
1:18:11 going to rise to the harmful
1:18:13 to minors.
1:18:14 It’s a heavy burden to get there.
1:18:15 » Right.
1:18:16 I get that.
1:18:17 And I don’t, you know, certainly don’t want our – to worry
1:18:21 about our staff having to
1:18:22 be, you know, taken to the – all the other provisions where,
1:18:25 you know, while planes are
1:18:26 filed with the state attorney’s office and all of that.
1:18:30 I just know that we – this responsibility weighs heavily on me.
1:18:37 It is our responsibility to make sure that the materials are
1:18:40 appropriate.
1:18:41 And we’re not talking about a parent coming in, you know, a
1:18:45 similar situation would be,
1:18:46 you know, and saying, you know what, in our house, we don’t let
1:18:49 our kids watch movies
1:18:50 that are above rated G.
1:18:52 And so telling the school, and then the school has to pout out
1:18:54 of that and say, oh, we’re
1:18:56 only watching G rated movies when we show a movie, which we don’t
1:18:59 show movies all the
1:19:01 time, right?
1:19:02 It doesn’t have education value.
1:19:03 This would be like – we’re talking about NC-17.
1:19:05 You know, we’re not talking about PG&G.
1:19:09 We’re talking about NC-17.
1:19:11 And if you don’t know where I’m coming from, you didn’t read the
1:19:15 excerpt.
1:19:16 So I’m sorry to get all – but I just – I want you to know my
1:19:21 heart on this is that
1:19:22 this is our responsibility, and I understand the legal, but we’re
1:19:25 not talking about going
1:19:26 – we’re talking about going to court.
1:19:29 We’re talking about what we choose as a board to allow.
1:19:35 And I’m asking, just again, just to clarify and go over how to
1:19:40 walk out, but that we – I’m
1:19:42 asking if there is consensus, and if there’s not, we’ll deal
1:19:45 with what it is as it is.
1:19:47 But is there consensus to make that specific, narrow challenge
1:19:55 that if – just if it’s about,
1:19:58 you know, material that would not be in line with 847.012, the
1:20:02 plain reading, not the – going
1:20:04 to the Supreme Court reading, that we go ahead and pull it
1:20:08 pending the decision of the committee?
1:20:12 And that portion, Paul, do you feel like there’s anything
1:20:16 problematic with pulling it before
1:20:19 it’s actually reviewed?
1:20:20 The board can do that if it – that’s where it wants to take its
1:20:26 pulse.
1:20:27 So Ms. Campbell, we had lots of discussion in our previous
1:20:31 policy about abuse of – or
1:20:32 manipulation of the system.
1:20:35 And I absolutely understand where you’re coming from on it, and
1:20:38 I’m not necessarily disagreeing
1:20:40 with you.
1:20:41 But I do think that we’re asking ourselves to just have every
1:20:45 book be argued that it’s
1:20:47 pornographic, to ensure that it’s pulled itself right away.
1:20:52 And I – like, we can have discussion.
1:20:54 I’m not digging in on it, but I just think we have to put that
1:20:59 in our head.
1:21:01 And I – listen, I look at all – I try to look at all the sides
1:21:03 of the things, and I
1:21:04 know that there’s – someday there’s going to be a book that is
1:21:09 challenged because it
1:21:10 has too conservative of a viewpoint, you know?
1:21:15 Maybe it’s a – while we’re having the lively discussion, maybe
1:21:19 it’s, you know, Donald Trump’s
1:21:21 autobiography, and somebody has a problem with it.
1:21:24 You know, that could be challenged, right?
1:21:25 That’s why I wanted it to be narrow, because we said it’s
1:21:29 already in the policy, I think
1:21:31 it was added in, that we’re not pulling things because it’s
1:21:34 against someone’s – actually,
1:21:36 no, it’s in the red line version.
1:21:40 No challenge material may be removed solely because it presents
1:21:42 ideas that may be unpopular
1:21:43 or offensive to some, right?
1:21:47 But 847.012 goes beyond what is unpopular or offensive to some.
1:21:52 And I just have to say it again every time that I can, because,
1:21:55 again, it’s been so misconstrued,
1:21:57 we’re not talking about books on history, we’re not talking
1:22:01 about books on race, I haven’t
1:22:03 seen any of that yet.
1:22:05 Maybe they’re coming later, I don’t know, but not – any of the
1:22:07 book challenges that
1:22:08 we’ve seen so far, it’s all been about this kind of highly
1:22:12 sexualized content.
1:22:15 And I take offense at people who say, “Oh, the Bible talks about
1:22:18 sex.”
1:22:18 Yeah, buddy, it does.
1:22:19 And I’ve read it through several times.
1:22:21 It does not give moment by moment, body part by body part
1:22:26 escalation – and I’m sorry,
1:22:28 that’s a surprise, you know, I’m just – it’s a workshop, we don’t
1:22:30 have as many kids watching
1:22:31 – that some of this material does.
1:22:36 So, you know, I don’t know if there’s any movement on that.
1:22:42 I hear what you’re saying, but I just – I think under that
1:22:45 circumstance, I would just
1:22:46 ask – and I said, “I’m asking if there’s not consensus, then I’ll,
1:22:50 you know, I yield.”
1:22:53 Well, is – I’m sorry, I’m talking for the rest of you guys.
1:22:59 Is there anything that – I mean, we said that if it’s – at the
1:23:03 informal process, if
1:23:05 it’s brought to the principal, the principal can say this needs
1:23:09 to be pulled if they feel
1:23:11 like it’s within the realm of that pornography, right?
1:23:14 Correct.
1:23:15 So if it’s a district level, couldn’t the assistant
1:23:20 superintendent also –
1:23:22 So I’m going to let Dr. Sullivan speak because we certainly are
1:23:28 going to this point.
1:23:30 So I want to go back to the previous statement you just made.
1:23:35 The informal process is for discussion with the parent in the
1:23:41 school, and so that discussion
1:23:44 may be appropriateness for a wide range of reasons.
1:23:48 I don’t want to limit it to the discussion on, like, the statute.
1:23:54 That’s not – I would – you know, there’s a lot of agency and
1:23:58 organizations sort of
1:24:00 labeling, you know, the books for schools and things like that.
1:24:03 So at that informal stage, you know, age appropriateness as well
1:24:06 as other content issues or different
1:24:08 issues are frequently discussed, and I would say that that
1:24:12 informal process over the years
1:24:14 has been in place.
1:24:17 With the district process, what we’ve outlined – what our
1:24:21 recommendation for the new language
1:24:23 on multiple titles, multiple schools also includes an informal
1:24:28 process, which is what
1:24:30 you’re seeing happening right now, that we – like any other
1:24:34 parent concern or any other
1:24:36 community concern, you know, I liken this to the – you all know
1:24:41 the many calls a day
1:24:42 I get on various issues.
1:24:44 We bring it to the principal.
1:24:46 We bring it for their review.
1:24:47 We bring the information for their consideration, and they work
1:24:50 with their media specialists.
1:24:52 They consider the different issues, and then they make those
1:24:56 decisions.
1:24:57 Sometimes it’s a matter of the book was actually lost, right?
1:25:01 So in some cases, when a book title is brought, they went to the
1:25:05 school to take it off the
1:25:06 shelf and it wasn’t there, and I’m using the word “lost”
1:25:10 generously, and so the book is
1:25:12 no longer there.
1:25:14 You know, there’s different issues that have occurred in some of
1:25:18 the e-book access.
1:25:19 When we brought the issue to a school, the e-book was actually
1:25:24 expired already.
1:25:25 So for a variety of different reasons, schools and principals
1:25:30 and media specialists working
1:25:32 in partnership with the information are making decisions that
1:25:36 make sense for them.
1:25:38 So I’m trying not to just be specific about these requests that
1:25:42 we’ve brought, because
1:25:44 again, we look at any parent request, any issue, any discussion,
1:25:49 any title, any topic
1:25:51 for whatever reason.
1:25:53 So we’ve advocated for that informal discussion first, which is
1:25:58 what we’re doing in good faith
1:26:01 as it parallels the solo school version.
1:26:05 We felt pretty confident as we handle any other parent concern
1:26:08 to bring that concern
1:26:09 to the school for their review and evaluation.
1:26:13 And that’s occurring organically right now.
1:26:17 In one of the titles, the publisher actually changed a
1:26:19 recommendation, so we sent that
1:26:21 out to the school.
1:26:22 They changed the recommendation.
1:26:24 As before mentioned, there were thousands upon thousands of
1:26:28 titles.
1:26:28 And so as new information is brought forward, we share that for
1:26:32 schools to consider and
1:26:33 to review.
1:26:35 So yeah, that informal stage is really occurring right now and
1:26:40 would occur with any complaint
1:26:43 that we got, honestly about anything, we would bring it to the
1:26:46 people involved and let those
1:26:47 conversations happen.
1:26:48 I don’t know if I answered your question.
1:26:51 I just, we’re trying to create a policy as the Board has asked
1:26:59 to withstand time, to
1:27:02 withstand individual topics and individual moments in time, but
1:27:07 honor the feedback of
1:27:08 our parents and community members, while also honoring the
1:27:11 professionalism of our staff.
1:27:13 I think we can do both of those things and get to some positive
1:27:17 resolutions by doing
1:27:19 both of those things.
1:27:21 Did I answer your question?
1:27:28 Yeah.
1:27:29 Okay.
1:27:30 Board members, are there?
1:27:39 I just, I will say something.
1:27:45 I just want to make clear the point that most of, if not all of
1:27:49 these ones that you presented
1:27:51 to us, since they can’t see the papers, the statutes are
1:27:54 numbered in the policy if people
1:27:55 are questioning what you were talking about.
1:27:58 And specifically 847.2 is, I don’t know, forget it, there’s too
1:28:05 many letters, too many letters.
1:28:11 My concern with making it specific like that is just, again, I
1:28:15 think we’re muddying the
1:28:16 waters, we’re muddying who makes that decision of what exactly
1:28:19 pornography is, because even
1:28:21 in this statute, it’s widely explained and broad, and it’s
1:28:25 already in the policy.
1:28:27 That statute’s referenced in this policy, it’s part of the
1:28:30 process.
1:28:31 It has to meet that threshold and that standard, so there
1:28:34 already is that check and balance
1:28:35 there.
1:28:36 And I just, I want to say one thing.
1:28:37 You did say that there’s a perception that you’re putting down
1:28:39 media specialists, but
1:28:40 I just, I mean, just as a board member with you, I don’t
1:28:43 personally believe anyone up
1:28:45 here thinks that.
1:28:46 I don’t think anything you’ve said when we had previous
1:28:49 discussions even alluded to that.
1:28:50 So if you’re hearing that, it’s just a minority of voices, and I
1:28:52 don’t think our media specialists
1:28:54 feel that way.
1:28:55 I think it’s more than reasonable for people to understand, and
1:28:57 our media specialists understand
1:28:59 that you don’t think they’re actually reading every book that’s
1:29:01 inside of their library.
1:29:02 So don’t own that.
1:29:04 Ms. McDougall, any, I don’t have any further comments on it.
1:29:11 The statute’s in here, in our policy, I think that’s where it
1:29:19 needs to be.
1:29:21 Mr. Susan, anything from you?
1:29:25 Nope.
1:29:26 So then, can I go back to the question, and I think Ms. Swain
1:29:30 already answered this, can
1:29:32 we add something about just that the results of any challenge,
1:29:36 whether it’s a school-level
1:29:37 challenge or a district-level challenge, can be noted somewhere
1:29:41 in the system, even if
1:29:42 we have the four-year expiration that it’s just.
1:29:48 And then, so in, it doesn’t have a letter, but right before you.
1:29:58 So many numbers and letters.
1:30:07 Right before you, so find you first, and go up the two
1:30:09 paragraphs before that.
1:30:10 That’s why I gave up.
1:30:12 Yeah.
1:30:13 I was trying to read them slowly so everybody had time to find
1:30:16 it.
1:30:16 Two paragraphs before you, it says, “No challenge material may
1:30:18 be removed from the curriculum
1:30:20 or from a collection of resource materials except by action of
1:30:23 the board, and no challenge
1:30:24 material may be removed.”
1:30:25 Okay.
1:30:26 So it’s not that phrase right there.
1:30:29 But we’ve just said, so this, so I guess this question is to Mr.
1:30:34 Gibbs, because that sounds
1:30:36 confusing if we’ve just said that our media specialists and
1:30:39 principals are already making
1:30:41 some decisions in collaboration, right?
1:30:42 Ms. Campbell, if I could mention that we’ve not received a form
1:30:47 of challenge materials.
1:30:49 So we have not received a completed form on any of them at this
1:30:57 point.
1:30:58 And so the way the policy’s written is if after that informal
1:31:05 process, the requester
1:31:08 is dissatisfied still, then it kind of goes to the next step.
1:31:14 And in our current policy, it would be after that informal, then
1:31:18 the parent would complete
1:31:19 the form, and that would trigger the process.
1:31:23 This is, we’re in a weird space because of the no policy policy
1:31:28 on multiple titles, multiple
1:31:30 schools.
1:31:31 But the same thing would happen, the requester would complete a
1:31:37 form, and we have not, so
1:31:39 I think our perspective has been the challenge material is
1:31:43 triggered by that form.
1:31:45 Okay.
1:31:46 We, I’m not saying we’re right.
1:31:47 I’m just saying that then, you know, however the board wants to
1:31:50 clarify that interpretation
1:31:52 is obviously okay, but it matches the NEOLA language and the
1:31:57 recommended language we’ve
1:31:59 seen in the other stuff.
1:32:02 So we haven’t received a completed form yet.
1:32:05 Gotcha.
1:32:06 So I just want to make sure, because it sounded like that was
1:32:08 contradicting what we were saying
1:32:09 of another part, that it can be removed if, in the informal
1:32:12 processes, but you were saying,
1:32:14 as long as it’s an informal process, then it wouldn’t
1:32:17 necessarily be defined as a challenge
1:32:20 material.
1:32:21 Right.
1:32:22 And again, we had, some good examples would be in our junior/seniors,
1:32:26 and making sure
1:32:27 maybe some content that’s appropriate for high school is
1:32:30 different than the middle school.
1:32:32 Some of those just informal navigating circumstances are–
1:32:35 Okay.
1:32:36 And I see the informal process as a request for reconsideration,
1:32:40 so that would not be
1:32:41 necessary.
1:32:42 Okay.
1:32:43 Thank you.
1:32:44 Ms. Campbell, can I just say something about that?
1:32:51 Yeah.
1:32:53 I think that how I read that whole paragraph, because you
1:32:56 stopped at right before the end.
1:32:58 It’s no challenge material may be removed from the curriculum or
1:33:03 collection of resource
1:33:04 material except by the action of the board, and no challenge
1:33:07 material may be removed solely
1:33:09 because it presents ideas that may be unpopular or offensive to
1:33:13 some.
1:33:13 And then it goes on, any board action to remove material will be
1:33:16 accompanied by the board’s
1:33:17 statement of its reasons for the removal.
1:33:19 So I think taking that one sentence out of context there doesn’t
1:33:27 contradict.
1:33:29 I think it was just clarifying why or why not we wouldn’t take
1:33:33 things out of the selection.
1:33:35 How does the statement, yes, how does the statement of the board,
1:33:40 how does that work
1:33:41 its way into what we, because our action by the board doesn’t
1:33:46 necessarily mean that book
1:33:48 is going to ultimately come to the board and we’re going to vote
1:33:51 yes or no, we are taking
1:33:52 action by the board by creating this policy and having this
1:33:55 provision that the district,
1:33:57 you know, like what’s right before that paragraph, the district
1:33:59 material review committee decision
1:34:01 is final.
1:34:02 We each get a representative on the committee and all of that.
1:34:04 So the statement by the board of its reasons for removal would
1:34:08 be the decision of the committee.
1:34:10 Okay.
1:34:11 And then the next, then the last paragraph before you, the board
1:34:20 shall discontinue use
1:34:23 of any material challenge in this policy if it contains content
1:34:26 that is, you know, then
1:34:27 there’s 847.012 inappropriate or in all the other things and
1:34:31 that comes straight out of
1:34:32 one of these statutes, ability to comprehend, inappropriate for
1:34:40 the grade level, all of
1:34:42 that.
1:34:43 So, but then just that four year, I think the four year, is that
1:34:47 only in the district
1:34:48 wide, the district level?
1:34:52 It’s in the original too.
1:34:53 Okay.
1:34:54 So again, another place where I would, at least in procedure, if
1:34:57 we can just have a
1:34:58 note that that any challenges will be noted for future, for the
1:35:03 good of our media specialists
1:35:05 that they would have all the information available to them.
1:35:10 We don’t have to go through this whole process all over again.
1:35:14 Oh, one other thing that I wanted to ask, ultimately it’s in
1:35:21 here for those committees,
1:35:24 the district level committees in both the 4(a) process and the 4(b)
1:35:29 process are, right,
1:35:31 but that it says these are the statutes, but can we make sure
1:35:37 that as, that the, in the
1:35:40 training or in the materials, whatever we hand to, you know,
1:35:43 like when we do instructional
1:35:44 material, like adopted, state adopted, we give the review
1:35:47 committee here, here’s the
1:35:48 kind of the rubric, here’s the statute, here’s whatever, I think
1:35:52 we need to have that kind
1:35:54 of material so they know what they’re looking at.
1:35:55 I’m just not going to subjectively, I mean, it is subjective,
1:35:59 but I’m going to have some
1:36:00 criteria that the state looks at.
1:36:16 It just didn’t have the, well, I guess it has 7(a), it does it
1:36:23 in the determination,
1:36:25 so I guess that, yeah, so and 1006.28 has those in there, let me
1:36:33 pull it up really quick
1:36:35 for myself, sorry, yeah, it does, it has all that criteria, not
1:36:41 suited to student needs
1:36:43 and ability, comprehend the material, inappropriate, and it also
1:36:48 has 847.012, okay, all right,
1:36:52 thank you.
1:36:53 That’s it.
1:36:54 Anybody else?
1:36:55 And chaperone extraordinaire.
1:36:56 Ms. Slack and I were together recently, I don’t know, they’re
1:37:14 all running together recently.
1:37:20 And I may have missed it when I stepped out, but what is our
1:37:23 reasoning for the four year
1:37:24 – so then we would need to do this all again in four years?
1:37:36 Okay, so let’s say a book is challenged and we decide, oh, I’m
1:38:06 going to have to
1:38:06 wait four years before they can challenge it again, is that my
1:38:12 understanding?
1:38:14 Yes.
1:38:15 So have we – any book that was challenged and we’ve moved, have
1:38:19 we ever put it back
1:38:20 in the system?
1:38:21 Okay.
1:38:22 I could be like, I’m beyond speculating here, but I can assume
1:38:29 maybe that number originally
1:38:33 maybe came from the mindset of it was probably coming from a
1:38:37 parent at a school and within
1:38:39 four years likely that their student no longer is at that school,
1:38:42 so it’s probably where
1:38:43 that number originated.
1:38:44 Never thought of that.
1:38:45 Oh, thank you for being glad you’re at this point, because there
1:38:49 was something else in
1:38:50 here that I think might be a – maybe it’s a typo.
1:38:55 In the old – sorry, I’m playing with this, I need to move it a
1:38:58 bit.
1:38:59 In the part that we created a couple years ago, it says, with
1:39:03 the four years, it says
1:39:05 and when it – if it reaches – if it goes past the school level
1:39:08 and it goes to that
1:39:08 district level committee, right, it says the four years and
1:39:12 affects the district.
1:39:14 Down in the new part where we’ve talked about district-wide
1:39:17 challenges, for some reason
1:39:19 at the end of that it says the determination is valid for four
1:39:24 years and affects only the
1:39:26 participating school.
1:39:29 Okay.
1:39:31 I’m giggling because I literally just passed her my paper and
1:39:34 said, “Oop, that’s a mistake.
1:39:36 We need to fix that.”
1:39:37 We literally just had that moment.
1:39:38 Thank you.
1:39:39 We’re going to go through all this process for district-wide
1:39:42 that needs to say the same
1:39:44 as before, so thank you for taking a look at that.
1:39:49 I would, from our end, request a little bit more clarification
1:39:52 on the four years, because
1:39:53 I agree that the interpretation was that if the book was
1:39:59 supported to remain in circulation,
1:40:03 that the requester – that we would not do the same thing the
1:40:08 very next year, not that
1:40:10 we would return the book in four years.
1:40:12 Can we clarify that somehow?
1:40:13 That’s what I’m asking.
1:40:14 That seems ridiculous.
1:40:15 That’s why I’m asking you not to leave that yet.
1:40:19 Okay.
1:40:20 Yeah.
1:40:21 So, I don’t know, because it cuts both ways, right, because at
1:40:25 the time when we were making
1:40:26 that, I think you’re right.
1:40:27 We’re not – someone can’t challenge it this year and then
1:40:29 challenge it next year
1:40:30 and challenge it the next year, you know, but the way it’s worded,
1:40:34 it cuts both ways.
1:40:35 It looks like, okay, we’re only keeping it off the shelf for
1:40:37 four years, and if somebody
1:40:38 wants to put it back on, and then somebody has to realize that
1:40:41 it’s back on, and then
1:40:42 we have to go through this process, and somebody put it on their
1:40:44 Google calendar to remind
1:40:45 them in four years to go and change, and then we have to go.
1:40:47 So if it – to me, if it fails a challenge, it’s gone through a
1:40:50 pretty rigorous process,
1:40:52 it needs to be done.
1:40:53 We’re never ordering that one again.
1:40:56 But unless we define some process for visiting a challenge, and
1:41:06 that sounds really messy,
1:41:10 too.
1:41:11 I was just going to say, though, you know, when you think about
1:41:13 it, like, where we are
1:41:15 – this is being used to challenge and potentially remove a book,
1:41:24 right?
1:41:25 Like, no one’s – this isn’t being used for the opposite.
1:41:29 This isn’t being used to say, I want this book back on the shelf.
1:41:33 So I think the intention of the four years is clear that it can’t
1:41:37 be re-challenged.
1:41:38 Well, and that’s one of the reasons why I requested for us to
1:41:41 flag them or put a note
1:41:42 or something because if someone wasn’t here four years ago and
1:41:46 they order a book because
1:41:47 it’s just in a group of books and there’s no way for them
1:41:49 knowing, oh, I might be stepping
1:41:51 into a hornet’s nest, you know, at the very least needs to be a
1:41:55 notation.
1:41:56 If we – if Dr. Sullivan is asking us what do we want to do with
1:41:59 that, do we want to
1:42:00 make it permanent, then I would say yes.
1:42:06 If it survives this process, the only change would be, not to
1:42:11 make it political, but we
1:42:14 have five members of the committee are represented by the board
1:42:18 and every so and so years we
1:42:20 get a new makeup of the board and, you know, we could
1:42:24 potentially have a shift.
1:42:26 And I think also you have to consider too, like, the community,
1:42:30 the population, the students
1:42:32 that are being served in that school, the representatives that
1:42:35 are on that committee
1:42:36 might drastically change.
1:42:38 I don’t know, I just think that’s something that’s good about.
1:42:45 Not to say that it wouldn’t get challenged and failed yet.
1:42:48 Right.
1:42:49 Can we be specific on what was probably the original intent,
1:42:58 meaning that it doesn’t get
1:43:02 re-challenged, however, that still doesn’t – that leaves a space
1:43:07 for clarity around,
1:43:09 like, the length of the – like, once it’s been upheld to be
1:43:14 removed, right.
1:43:16 I think if it’s – I think we can be really specific that if it’s
1:43:20 been upheld to remain
1:43:21 in this school that we won’t redo that within four years and
1:43:27 just use more specific words
1:43:30 and what we all infer was the original intent.
1:43:33 But I do think we need from the board a subsequent bullet, if
1:43:40 you will, on the length of that
1:43:44 and the Z intent for future boards to be able to revisit it or
1:43:49 not, I think, you know, for
1:43:51 you guys to give us that to put in there is kind of my view.
1:43:56 So there’s 7A and 7B right above, the easiest ways to go to you
1:44:03 and then back up.
1:44:05 7A and 7B, A is the one that says it does not meet it and the
1:44:13 school shall discontinue.
1:44:16 I think that needs to say the district – that’s what we’re
1:44:18 talking about, the district shall
1:44:19 discontinue and then affects the whole district, right.
1:44:27 Are you – so that would, for me, we’ll just – we just leave it,
1:44:31 discontinue the
1:44:33 use of the material.
1:44:36 I don’t think we need to – we could take off this, if there’s
1:44:38 board one and two, we
1:44:39 could take off this and it says the district material review
1:44:41 determination is valid for
1:44:42 four years and affects only – or we could just say the district
1:44:45 material review determination
1:44:47 affects the entire district and take the four years completely
1:44:50 out.
1:44:51 And then B says that it does meet the criteria and the
1:44:55 determination is valid for four years
1:44:58 and again, affects the entire district.
1:45:03 I had a – a moment while you read that out loud as well about
1:45:06 the four years.
1:45:07 It may also have been originally written because of the terms
1:45:11 the school remembers as well.
1:45:13 Just to kind of piggyback off of what you were saying.
1:45:18 It doesn’t solve the problem or answer the question.
1:45:19 Whatever we decide needs to be consistent between the school
1:45:22 level challenge with the
1:45:24 district appeal and then the – and then this one.
1:45:38 So I have a question.
1:45:39 So do – okay, I’m just going to ask a question and then you
1:45:43 answer it for me.
1:45:45 So a book is challenged, it’s removed, currently right now as it’s
1:45:50 written, what is stopping
1:45:53 it from coming back?
1:45:54 The statement about the four years?
1:45:56 Okay.
1:45:57 So it goes in both directions right now.
1:45:59 Okay.
1:46:00 Just – I mean, that’s what I assumed but just want to make sure.
1:46:05 I would just interject because we’ve never had it happen, I don’t
1:46:08 know that we know
1:46:09 what we would have intended.
1:46:14 In either direction.
1:46:15 Yeah.
1:46:16 I really was just kind of thinking out loud because I couldn’t
1:46:19 let it go.
1:46:20 But we’re all clear on the fact that we don’t want a re-challenge
1:46:25 every year, right?
1:46:27 Like there’s no question on that.
1:46:29 So then where we have a question is – What number do we like?
1:46:34 Four and a – Four and a –
1:46:39 I have to go back to what we were saying, but I do get the sense
1:46:52 that it’s not continuous.
1:46:58 Right.
1:46:59 Okay.
1:47:00 Well, if I can interject, I think we need to clarify that it
1:47:17 would be – the length
1:47:23 of time is that it would be removed and not considered for repurchase
1:47:27 before a period
1:47:28 of time.
1:47:29 Okay.
1:47:30 So that we’re not suggesting that it’s removed for a finite
1:47:33 period of time, and
1:47:34 then it will be put back on a shelf because ultimately that’s an
1:47:38 – that would be
1:47:39 an administrative management challenge, in my opinion.
1:47:44 It would be a media specialist couldn’t consider – couldn’t
1:47:49 reconsider reshelving
1:47:51 that book or purchasing that book before – and would use the
1:47:56 same review process they use
1:47:58 now in evaluating whether or not that’s an appropriate book for
1:48:01 the show.
1:48:02 That make sense?
1:48:03 If, in fact, the board wants to consider a length of time until
1:48:08 which time a media specialist
1:48:11 could give it reconsideration.
1:48:16 And the board could determine that it is pulled and no longer
1:48:19 eligible for reconsideration.
1:48:21 I’m going to get the ball rolling here.
1:48:28 I’m comfortable with four.
1:48:30 That doesn’t bother me.
1:48:32 So after four years it could be considered for repurchase?
1:48:36 Yeah.
1:48:37 I mean, again, like what’s the likelihood of that happening?
1:48:42 I mean, it’s slim.
1:48:43 I mean, if it happens, then there’s still the process in place
1:48:47 where it can be challenged
1:48:48 and removed if it’s deemed to be challenged and removed.
1:48:50 I mean –
1:48:51 I think the difficulty lies in we are saying that the book is
1:48:58 being removed because of
1:49:01 its match to state law and, like, established criteria and
1:49:06 matched for the bad, right?
1:49:09 And so I just – it would make me nervous because four years with
1:49:15 – four years might
1:49:17 seem like a long time and our world is not a long time with the
1:49:20 length of our careers
1:49:21 and things.
1:49:23 So it would make me a little nervous to just say this ends and
1:49:27 then – so I don’t have
1:49:32 an answer, but maybe we’ll ponder.
1:49:34 Because –
1:49:35 Yeah.
1:49:36 No, that’s kind of where I’m from is if it’s gone through this –
1:49:36 if it’s gone
1:49:37 through the process and then it’s removed, pretty vigorous
1:49:37 process.
1:49:38 And a lot of people, I think, because the committee is 9,000 or
1:49:38 10,000 years old and
1:49:39 stacking it up to some – to the standards of statute, I don’t
1:49:52 see any reason why it
1:49:56 would be appropriate to add it back.
1:50:02 Yeah.
1:50:03 I guess the only – the only argument I would make to that is it’s
1:50:07 not – like, it’s
1:50:09 not 15 lawyers evaluating it and holding it up to the value of
1:50:12 the statute, right?
1:50:13 I mean, it is –
1:50:14 Right.
1:50:15 It’s a really good mixed bag.
1:50:16 I’m not saying that.
1:50:17 I’m not putting that down by any means.
1:50:18 But I also think it’s kind of unreasonable to not potentially
1:50:23 allow, as time changes
1:50:25 – again, the population changes, community or serving changes,
1:50:29 to not potentially allow
1:50:31 for it to come back and be revisited by a different group.
1:50:35 Might I suggest that a requester in the future could request the
1:50:40 process to reconvene after
1:50:43 X amount of years, and then a committee’s relooking at it.
1:50:46 So somebody could have to take an affirmative action to reconvene
1:50:52 after X amount of years.
1:50:54 And then to Ms. Jenkins’ point, to everybody’s point, really,
1:50:58 again, perspectives change
1:51:00 as well.
1:51:01 And so that somebody could, in the affirmative, request a
1:51:05 reconsideration after X amount of
1:51:08 years and follow the same process.
1:51:11 But then wouldn’t there have to be a process in which the
1:51:14 request to put it in is happening?
1:51:17 That’s what I mean.
1:51:18 Literally follow this – it’s – the title is reconsideration,
1:51:22 right?
1:51:23 So perhaps we take that on both ends to reconsider.
1:51:31 So just like we wouldn’t reconsider an acceptance of a title for
1:51:36 X amount of years, once a title
1:51:39 has been removed, we would – if somebody wanted to do an
1:51:42 affirmative reconsideration
1:51:43 in the other direction.
1:51:44 Can you talk about – giving you guys some thoughts on that.
1:51:48 And that’s where I was going when I said unless we have a
1:51:50 process in place for it to
1:51:51 be revisited later, although I was envisioning it being like a
1:51:56 whole other nightmare of a
1:51:59 process to create.
1:52:00 But I think you just nailed it, Dr. Sullivan.
1:52:02 You just simply have a form for a request for reconsideration
1:52:05 and then everything is
1:52:06 there.
1:52:07 Yeah.
1:52:08 I guess like who do we see doing that, though?
1:52:12 Right?
1:52:13 Like it really would only be our media specialist because –
1:52:14 No, it could be.
1:52:15 Yeah.
1:52:16 I don’t know.
1:52:17 Well, it’s because you’re considering the list in front of you
1:52:22 right now, but the list
1:52:24 would look that are widely considered to be of tremendous value,
1:52:31 right?
1:52:32 And so it could be in the reverse of that, you know, societal
1:52:36 perspectives change greatly
1:52:39 over the years.
1:52:41 I guess it’s just – it’s hard to envision because we don’t have
1:52:43 –
1:52:43 It is.
1:52:44 Exactly.
1:52:45 So it’s kind of weird to envision somebody coming back to the
1:52:48 table.
1:52:48 It’s very strange.
1:52:49 But just allowing the reconsideration process to go both ways
1:52:54 might solve the –
1:52:55 I like that.
1:52:56 Can you guys go to the top?
1:52:58 Yeah.
1:52:59 Do we want the same number?
1:53:00 Like it’s reconsideration after four years or do you want it
1:53:04 longer or what do we want?
1:53:08 I like my made-up excuses as to why the word is.
1:53:11 They seem pretty sad.
1:53:12 I think it works.
1:53:13 I mean, I’m just – I came up with two, right?
1:53:17 I hope.
1:53:18 The only reason I might suggest a longer period of time is, I
1:53:26 mean, we could be facing the
1:53:30 same – this is a – one thing the board has not discussed, I know
1:53:33 you’re very aware
1:53:34 of and I’ll take this opportunity, is the amount of time that is
1:53:38 going to be required
1:53:39 to do this process, it’s not weeks.
1:53:44 And it’s probably not even months.
1:53:47 The number of titles that have been submitted for challenge is
1:53:52 likely going to take at least
1:53:54 a year to get through, given the number of titles and the demand
1:54:00 on – not the least
1:54:00 of which is staff time to manage this process.
1:54:04 And I believe, you know, just to echo Ms. Klein’s sentiments of
1:54:10 Ms. Slack, our media
1:54:12 special, one media resource teacher for 70,000 students, 85
1:54:18 schools.
1:54:19 So, she’s a very, very, very busy person.
1:54:23 But, all of that aside, in four years, we then don’t need a list
1:54:29 submitted to reconsider
1:54:31 any number of books that have been removed.
1:54:34 I think a longer period of time, if we’re going to go through
1:54:37 the rigors of removing
1:54:38 a book, then it should be a – eight years.
1:54:44 Decade.
1:54:45 Ten years.
1:54:46 Everything changes by decade, right?
1:54:48 I – personally, I’m not for extending it.
1:54:52 I think putting the least amount of restriction on these type of
1:54:57 things is important.
1:54:59 I think if we come from the perspective of it being challenged
1:55:05 probably by someone whose
1:55:07 student has access to it and it makes them uncomfortable, I don’t
1:55:13 know.
1:55:13 I just – I think extending it is not the best idea.
1:55:16 I understand that it is a long process, but the four years would
1:55:20 then start once that
1:55:21 process is over, correct?
1:55:23 It’s not going to overlap.
1:55:26 Again, I don’t know.
1:55:29 It makes me concerned when we’re restricting things in the first
1:55:32 place, and I think putting
1:55:33 more time on it is an unnecessary extension of that restriction.
1:55:39 Again, because realistically, I don’t know how often or likely
1:55:46 we will see someone coming
1:55:49 back to the table trying to put a book back in that was taken
1:55:52 off.
1:55:52 I don’t know how realistic that really is.
1:55:55 Well, I would also –
1:55:56 Then again, I guess –
1:55:57 Yeah.
1:55:58 Re-challenging, re-challenging.
1:55:59 Yeah.
1:56:00 But let’s just –
1:56:01 So we’re writing a policy for kind of a new experience, and much
1:56:13 like our revisions to
1:56:16 our public comment policy, we can always make revisions on
1:56:20 timeline again.
1:56:21 I would tend to go along with Dr. Mullen’s on making it a longer
1:56:26 period of time, and
1:56:28 I mean, we can always revisit the – or the next board, whoever
1:56:32 is here, can revisit the
1:56:34 policy if we find that there’s a situation that arises that
1:56:38 there needs to be reconsideration.
1:56:40 Because the staff time is incredibly concerning for all involved,
1:56:50 everyone.
1:56:52 And then you can always report in the back if you found there
1:56:56 was a reason to.
1:56:57 I do want to follow up with this thought.
1:57:02 If we can take a moment to think about how many emails we even
1:57:06 got on this so far, it’s
1:57:08 not many.
1:57:10 I understand there was a list that was lengthy, but I hesitate
1:57:16 to continuously restrict something
1:57:19 that hasn’t necessarily been brought to our attention more than
1:57:26 it already has.
1:57:28 How often will this happen again?
1:57:31 What is the likelihood of it happening again, over and over
1:57:33 again?
1:57:33 I don’t think we can predict that.
1:57:35 So I agree with you, and I hear you, that we could revise it.
1:57:38 I believe the better thing to do would be put the least amount
1:57:42 of restriction on something,
1:57:43 and if it becomes an issue where it’s happening too often or
1:57:46 causing too much trouble for
1:57:47 our staff, then we would hope that the policy would be revised
1:57:53 to increase.
1:57:54 I think going backwards would be a weird scenario.
1:57:59 If the movement of the board is not to go with my suggestion of
1:58:04 permanently removing,
1:58:05 then I would prefer for this year to discuss it later.
1:58:15 Quite frankly, I’m not for eight or ten years removal, but at
1:58:19 the same time, I don’t think
1:58:21 we’re going to get a whole bunch of people knocking down our
1:58:25 doors to reinstate a book.
1:58:26 I’d be very surprised, because those people will have been gone.
1:58:29 Their children will be gone from our school.
1:58:33 But when we restrict something so much, I get very nervous.
1:58:39 So I could do five.
1:58:43 That would work, but eight or ten, no.
1:58:52 You mean you’re good.
1:58:56 That wasn’t the answer.
1:58:58 The way Dr. Mullins wants it, so you support eight?
1:59:01 Eight years.
1:59:02 So eight is what you.
1:59:07 So I guess, so say it’s ten, right?
1:59:12 Like, what scenario would cause the board to come together to
1:59:16 revise the policy to reduce
1:59:17 the time?
1:59:18 I don’t see how that would ever happen.
1:59:20 That doesn’t even make any sense to me.
1:59:24 I think if it’s going to be revised, it’s going to be revised to
1:59:27 increase it, because
1:59:27 it’s a problem, because it’s happening too often.
1:59:29 I think the opposite doesn’t make sense.
1:59:35 So I would just like to say that we put all these emphasis on
1:59:39 rules and regulations, and
1:59:40 the school board has the power to just say we would like to be
1:59:44 back in, voted in, and
1:59:45 have it be part of our story.
1:59:47 We can sit here and argue back and forth between four and eight.
1:59:49 But we, as a school board, could vote tonight to wrap up and
1:59:53 take off books or put books
1:59:55 in.
1:59:56 We can do that.
1:59:58 We have the authority to do that.
2:00:00 When we’re all sitting here going back and forth over five, four,
2:00:03 eight, whatever it
2:00:04 is, just understand that that’s all great, because that’s part
2:00:07 of the process, but also
2:00:08 understand the power that you have as individuals.
2:00:10 You can change that.
2:00:11 So if somebody really came forward and said passionately that
2:00:14 they want this book inside
2:00:15 the school district and we’re okay with it, we can put it out.
2:00:18 I just wanted to remind everybody that.
2:00:21 Don’t get hung up on them.
2:00:23 That’s all.
2:00:24 Thank you, Mr. Susan.
2:00:28 I am going to tend toward the longer period of time to save
2:00:32 resources in response.
2:00:34 So I don’t know if that means, I don’t know, does that mean that
2:00:43 you two are not going
2:00:45 to vote in favor of the policy when it comes back to it?
2:00:48 Like, do we need to completely hash this out?
2:00:50 I don’t know.
2:00:51 I have no idea.
2:00:52 I can’t say that.
2:00:53 Okay.
2:00:54 We made a lot of changes.
2:00:58 And again, a collaborative process.
2:01:01 Everybody doesn’t get what they want.
2:01:03 I’m not getting what I want.
2:01:05 So, you know, I hope, you know, I’m thinking if it’s not
2:01:08 completely objectionable, we don’t
2:01:10 have to have a 5-0 vote.
2:01:12 That’s true.
2:01:13 That is true.
2:01:14 Okay.
2:01:15 I have a couple of, so are you good?
2:01:19 I think we’re leaning toward Dr. Mullen’s recommendation of
2:01:23 eight years as far as when
2:01:24 it can be.
2:01:25 Seven.
2:01:26 Because.
2:01:27 Okay.
2:01:28 It’s going to be a gamble.
2:01:29 We’re going to go 12.
2:01:30 It’s going to be a surprise.
2:01:31 A 12-sided die.
2:01:32 Ms. Belford, if I want to, I’ll pick myself if I don’t say this.
2:01:44 So, we really appreciate that everybody’s talking about the time
2:01:48 and energy of our staff.
2:01:50 I do want to say on behalf of the staff, this reflective process
2:01:57 is critically important.
2:01:59 And when we say time, we just mean it may take a long time
2:02:04 because there’s a lot of
2:02:06 titles, but the time is well spent.
2:02:09 So to kind of bridge maybe other perspectives, the time is well
2:02:14 spent in really being thoughtful
2:02:16 about the material for our kids.
2:02:18 So I don’t want you to think that staff is not committed to
2:02:23 whatever time necessary to
2:02:26 have the very best content.
2:02:28 And I know our media specialists feel the same way.
2:02:31 And that’s why this informal process has been super beneficial
2:02:36 to sort of revisit the content
2:02:38 we choose.
2:02:39 And so time is a problem in terms of there’s so many hours in
2:02:43 the day.
2:02:44 But time on this task is really, really important.
2:02:47 And everybody feels that way.
2:02:49 And I know Ms. Slack is not there anymore.
2:02:53 She feels that way as well.
2:02:55 This may mean it’s going to take longer, just every time, you
2:02:59 know, with titles, but that
2:03:00 it is important work.
2:03:02 Right.
2:03:03 And we don’t feel we don’t want to shortcut it in any way, shape
2:03:05 or form, regardless of
2:03:06 what the outcome may be, may support or may lean to.
2:03:10 I just wanted.
2:03:12 Thank you for that.
2:03:13 Having lived with it for now for a while.
2:03:15 I just wanted to point that out.
2:03:17 Thank you.
2:03:18 Absolutely.
2:03:19 Thank you for that question.
2:03:20 So again, Cheryl, correct me if I’m wrong, if I’m putting words
2:03:24 in your mouth or misinterpreting
2:03:25 what you’re saying and thinking.
2:03:27 But I think at first, like you and I are coming from the
2:03:30 perspective of like the book potentially
2:03:32 coming back, not the not the revisiting of the challenge.
2:03:38 So is there any appetite for those to be different from each
2:03:41 other?
2:03:41 Because right now, as it stands, they’re cool.
2:03:44 You know what I’m saying?
2:03:45 I suggested a different, but nobody wanted to get with mine.
2:03:48 So, for instance.
2:03:52 What I what I what I think, again, if I’m wrong, you guys tell
2:03:55 me I’m wrong.
2:03:55 What I think with the end, Dr. Mullins, the consideration of our
2:04:00 staff’s time really would
2:04:01 be if it keeps getting challenged over and over and over and
2:04:04 over again.
2:04:04 Right.
2:04:05 So that being longer would alleviate that problem.
2:04:12 The likelihood of someone coming to the table saying, I’m going
2:04:16 to bring back this book
2:04:16 that was challenged is probably really, really, really unlikely,
2:04:20 which is why I feel strongly
2:04:21 about not making it such a long period of time, because it at
2:04:25 least provides that opportunity
2:04:26 if someone does want it to be revisited, can be revisited.
2:04:29 But I don’t think that would happen as frequently as somebody re-challenging
2:04:34 a book.
2:04:34 I don’t I think just to clarify, I think what it sounds like
2:04:37 what you’re saying is that
2:04:38 someone would come and challenge to put a book back.
2:04:41 There’s nothing in any of this that would.
2:04:43 OK, well, because that’s what they’re talking about.
2:04:46 The re-challenge would be that after the four years is over,
2:04:52 that someone would put, you
2:04:54 know, a media specialist would be allowed or maybe they wouldn’t
2:04:57 know about the challenge
2:04:58 or what I hope they would because we’re going to mark it, put
2:05:00 the book back out on the shelf
2:05:02 and then a parent finds it again and the books get challenged
2:05:05 again and go through the process
2:05:06 again.
2:05:07 So let me clarify, because I think we I thought what we said and
2:05:11 we agreed upon was that it
2:05:12 would have to be revisited.
2:05:13 So it wouldn’t just end up back on a shelf.
2:05:15 It would have to be revisited.
2:05:17 So this process here would be when can you revisit that book?
2:05:20 When can you request a meeting again, a committee meeting again
2:05:23 to revisit the book?
2:05:24 It wouldn’t just end up on the shelf and then get challenged
2:05:27 again.
2:05:27 It would have to be revisited no matter what.
2:05:29 And so for me, I feel like that one shouldn’t be as long and as
2:05:33 restrictive because it’s
2:05:34 going to have to go through that process.
2:05:36 And the likelihood of that happening over and over again, I
2:05:38 personally believe is slim.
2:05:39 It’s not going to happen often.
2:05:42 But the other one is to avoid the constant re-challenging of
2:05:45 something that may have said,
2:05:48 you know, it doesn’t meet the standard.
2:05:49 We’re not going to go ahead and take this book off the shelf.
2:05:52 So I’m just throwing that out there if you guys are willing to
2:05:54 separate that or have
2:05:55 an appetite for separating it.
2:05:56 Because I think we were I think we all were kind of coming at it
2:05:59 from different sides
2:06:00 originally.
2:06:01 Yeah, I see your point there, Ms. Jenkins.
2:06:03 I will tell you from my perspective, I think when a book has
2:06:07 gone through this process
2:06:09 and it’s been deemed to be inappropriate for students, I feel
2:06:14 like that should be a longer
2:06:19 timeframe before it can be revisited just because like, I mean,
2:06:22 it’s been reviewed by
2:06:23 all of these people and been deemed to be a problem.
2:06:29 If a book wasn’t deemed to be a problem, then I don’t have as
2:06:34 much concern about it, I guess.
2:06:40 Yeah.
2:06:41 It’s almost the same coin, quite frankly, because if the book
2:06:47 was challenged and deemed
2:06:49 that it wasn’t a problem and it’s on the shelf, and then only in
2:06:53 four years somebody says,
2:06:55 you know what, I’m going to challenge this book again.
2:06:57 So we’re going through the whole process again.
2:07:00 So I think the coin is the same, whether it was denied or not
2:07:04 denied.
2:07:05 And do we take a longer time period to prevent our staff being
2:07:12 challenged every four years
2:07:14 for a book just because whatever, that’s kind of how I look.
2:07:42 So what’s a good number for you all?
2:07:44 I mean, really, I mean, I mean, yeah, you guys are the ones that
2:07:48 have been living the process.
2:07:50 Eight for both.
2:08:12 So I have a question on the committee, the district level
2:08:24 committee.
2:08:25 So it says that at the beginning of each school year, we’re
2:08:30 going to establish this committee.
2:08:35 Yeah, for B, it’s on page 60 of the PDF.
2:08:42 You go to you and scroll up page and a half.
2:08:53 So does that mean that at the beginning of each school year, you
2:08:58 all are going to identify
2:09:00 school media specialists in each grade band and principals in
2:09:07 each grade brand?
2:09:12 Yes, we spent a long time talking about that.
2:09:22 And we felt we have some similar processes in the district where,
2:09:26 you know, people sort
2:09:27 of elect themselves to be the reviewers for that year.
2:09:31 And so that it’s not tied to any bias with a specific book.
2:09:37 So it seemed to us to be a good idea at some late night.
2:09:44 So just to I just identify like amongst the medium specialists
2:09:49 themselves, they would
2:09:51 nominate vote and have, we would do more than a few in case
2:09:55 there comes a need to have a
2:09:57 second committee based on volume we indicated that in there, but
2:10:04 we felt that it would give
2:10:05 us the best neutral, not tied to a title, we didn’t want to
2:10:11 select a title and then
2:10:13 select people around that title because it just lends itself to
2:10:19 questioning the bias
2:10:21 of those that either nominate themselves, or were selected,
2:10:28 right where we landed.
2:10:30 The other thing and I will throw it out there and you guys can
2:10:33 tell me that I’ve, I’ve lost
2:10:35 my mind.
2:10:36 It’s completely unnecessary.
2:10:37 But I know there’s been a significant amount of discussion about
2:10:41 the psychological impact
2:10:43 of some of the books that the students are being exposed to.
2:10:47 And so I’m just curious if it would be valuable to have one of
2:10:52 our school psychologists be
2:10:55 a part of the panel also just from the aspect of like being able
2:10:58 to interpret.
2:11:02 Luckily the person in charge of them is here so let her decide.
2:11:07 She’s like, let me find some.
2:11:11 Like developmental appropriateness for age, mental maturity
2:11:15 level based on some of the
2:11:17 things coming forward.
2:11:18 I just, I don’t know.
2:11:19 Except I would say that actually several people who are on the
2:11:22 committee would have already,
2:11:23 I mean it’s not being a psychologist, but all of our media
2:11:26 specialists, our administrators,
2:11:28 our content resource, all, you know, when you get an education
2:11:32 degree, a huge part of
2:11:33 that is psychology, human development, all of that is part of
2:11:38 the training.
2:11:39 And of course, you know, parents have some, maybe not a
2:11:42 psychology degree at the end of
2:11:43 their name.
2:11:44 Whoever you pick to be on the committee to represent you, but,
2:11:49 you know, that we have
2:11:51 a knowledge of development too, so I don’t know.
2:11:55 I agree with you, Ms. Campbell.
2:11:56 I’ll toss that out there.
2:11:57 Go ahead and speak, Ms. Moore.
2:11:59 I think our psychologists are pretty busy too.
2:12:02 Yes.
2:12:03 I don’t know.
2:12:04 Is this on?
2:12:05 This is on.
2:12:06 A, we’d be happy to support.
2:12:09 I know you guys have done a lot of work.
2:12:11 I know you put a lot of thought into this.
2:12:13 Our psychologists are incredibly busy.
2:12:15 There might be some that this is a passion.
2:12:19 Psychologists and social workers both could review any concerns
2:12:23 over the mental health
2:12:24 of the books in our school and their impact on students.
2:12:28 So if that’s the recommendation, we’d be happy to support that.
2:12:32 Would you be satisfied with it being broader, though, to maybe
2:12:37 be like a psychologist, counselor,
2:12:40 social worker?
2:12:41 Yeah.
2:12:42 I mean, being realistic, I mean, we’re limited with our
2:12:45 psychologists and the amount of workload
2:12:47 that they have.
2:12:50 It’s something that we definitely would need to consider.
2:12:52 So could we know that we have a– Right.
2:13:09 I’m not in favor of adding anybody else to it.
2:13:11 I mean, I understand the point, but I also know that all of the
2:13:14 people on the committee
2:13:15 could have access to– I mean, they can certainly consult with
2:13:19 whoever they feel like necessary
2:13:21 to get a broader perspective.
2:13:24 And I would hope that they would take advantage of whatever
2:13:28 resources that a particular book
2:13:30 has.
2:13:31 Honestly, sometimes those conversations, specific books that
2:13:34 maybe talk about abuse or specific
2:13:36 triggers to a specific child, that’s kind of where our process
2:13:40 of a parent being able
2:13:42 to flag a book for their child, that’s– I see that more coming
2:13:45 into play with those
2:13:46 kind of situations, because a parent knows that their child
2:13:51 maybe went through something
2:13:53 in the past and they don’t want to trigger them in that way.
2:13:56 So I don’t know.
2:13:57 I think– plus the other thing is we have a committee of nine,
2:14:00 and in case we have a
2:14:01 split vote, I’m leaving it at nine.
2:14:08 Yeah, I was just trying to find a psychologist to appoint as my
2:14:16 representative.
2:14:19 All right, anything else on this policy?
2:14:28 Anything else that you all need from us on this policy?
2:14:30 Just for your awareness, it’s probably the other piece–
2:14:40 Mm-hmm.
2:14:42 All the language will change.
2:14:50 While we’re on that, is there any– we may have to wait until
2:14:55 the DOE has found the rules,
2:14:58 but has there been any clarification on if what we are currently
2:15:02 using– because part
2:15:03 of the new statute says the titles have to be on the website.
2:15:06 Is what we’re currently using, the method with the access to FALET,
2:15:10 is that satisfactory?
2:15:11 Yeah.
2:15:12 OK, so we won’t have to make a change that we know of right now.
2:15:17 That’s all right.
2:15:19 And somebody referenced that FALET is listening and working
2:15:23 alongside– I know they have some
2:15:26 changes planned that they can’t timeline out because of their
2:15:30 employment issues, right?
2:15:33 So everybody’s– they trickle down, but FALET has been listening
2:15:38 and paying attention and
2:15:40 making changes and adjustments to provide more accessibility for
2:15:48 parents and information
2:15:50 and things like that.
2:15:51 So I know they’re being a good partner.
2:15:53 So at this point, I think it’s OK.
2:15:54 And it’s my understanding to be a better resource for our media
2:15:57 specialists when they’re doing
2:15:58 their research for books, right, is what I’m hearing.
2:16:19 And to make them consistent between the district– yeah, yeah,
2:16:25 yeah.
2:16:25 The typo.
2:16:27 And I do want to mention one of the things that hasn’t come up
2:16:32 yet that will likely,
2:16:34 I don’t know, be in a procedure maybe is we have to address cost
2:16:40 of the books for the
2:16:41 review as well as our employees’ time.
2:16:45 And so there will be budget attached.
2:16:49 I don’t say that negatively or positively, just in terms of
2:16:57 information.
2:17:00 » If they’re in the public library, perhaps they were pulled
2:17:04 from the public library.
2:17:05 » All right.
2:17:06 Thank you very much.
2:17:07 » Thank you.
2:17:08 All right, we are now moving on to board policy 5630-01 seclusion
2:17:18 and restraint of students
2:17:20 with disabilities.
2:17:22 Any board member wish to discuss any aspects of this policy?
2:17:28 » This is just lining with the new statute, right?
2:17:29 This is the lining, putting us in alignment with the new statute.
2:17:30 » So it was?
2:17:31 It was in line with the new statute.
2:17:32 We’ve been working on this since October.
2:17:35 The reason it took so long is there was some conflict between
2:17:39 the way the DOE interpreted
2:17:41 it, the statute, and the way kind of our local law enforcement
2:17:46 interpreted the statute.
2:17:48 And then about a week and a half ago, the governor signed house
2:17:52 bill 235, which doesn’t
2:17:55 go into effect until July, but it very much clarifies the
2:17:59 language in this policy that
2:18:02 it does apply to our school resource officers.
2:18:06 So Paul and I spoke before this meeting.
2:18:11 We can either go ahead and adjust the language before it comes
2:18:14 to you again so that it reflects
2:18:16 that on July 1, this is the new language, or we can just approve
2:18:21 the policy as it is,
2:18:22 which is appropriate, and then bring it to you again as we get
2:18:26 closer to July 1 to incorporate
2:18:28 house bill 235.
2:18:35 » The most efficient would just be effective until July 1, 2022,
2:18:40 and then effective after
2:18:42 have a separate section.
2:18:43 You see that in policies all the time around the state.
2:18:47 Then we can just revise it and remove all the stuff that’s
2:18:50 outdated once we need to
2:18:51 review it again in the future, rather than if you just leave it
2:18:55 as is, you’re going to
2:18:56 have to revise it again in the next three months.
2:19:00 » We’ll have a deadline.
2:19:02 » Yeah.
2:19:03 » Yeah, I think that’s appropriate.
2:19:06 » Yeah, and we – there’s – correct me if I’m wrong, but there
2:19:14 is potential that technical
2:19:17 guidance might create additional changes to the policy.
2:19:22 There is some – there is some rumor out there that it will.
2:19:30 House bill 235 specifically leaves open what our current CEDNET
2:19:35 is saying is that there
2:19:37 will be – I’ll read you the paragraph because it will be easier
2:19:39 to read it and then explain
2:19:40 it.
2:19:42 Restraint, school personnel may not use mechanical restraint.
2:19:47 This paragraph does not apply to school resource – this
2:19:49 paragraph does not apply to school
2:19:51 resource officers, school safety officers, school guardians, or
2:19:54 school security guards
2:19:55 as described by 1006.12 who may use mechanical restraint in the
2:20:00 exercise of their powers
2:20:01 and duties to restrict students in grades six through 12.
2:20:06 So there’s two pieces of this.
2:20:08 The first piece is that we have to report SROs as using a
2:20:13 mechanical restraint and two,
2:20:16 K through five was deliberately left out.
2:20:21 Currently what it’s being interpreted as is that no K through
2:20:25 five student can be restrained
2:20:27 mechanically which could be either a zip tie or a handcuff that
2:20:30 our law enforcement officers
2:20:32 may currently be using.
2:20:35 So there – yes, there may be some challenges to this and yes,
2:20:41 there may be some policy
2:20:44 – some procedure revision that comes down, but the way it’s
2:20:47 being interpreted right now
2:20:48 is that K through five absolutely nobody including our school
2:20:52 resource officers can use a mechanical
2:20:55 restraint.
2:20:56 » Okay.
2:20:57 » All right.
2:20:58 So we’re going forward with Paul’s recommendation of up until
2:21:03 July 1 and then after July 1.
2:21:06 » And I do, much like – much like Jane, I do want to
2:21:09 acknowledge my two people sitting
2:21:12 way in the back because they’ve spent hours on this policy.
2:21:15 Dr. Kim Bias is our director of VSE programs and then Jill Manus
2:21:20 has invested herself in
2:21:22 ensuring that we’re protecting and documenting and training and
2:21:26 retraining and retraining
2:21:28 and retraining as it involves restraint of students – restraint
2:21:31 of students with disabilities.
2:21:33 So I just want to acknowledge the work that they’ve done.
2:21:36 » Thank you, ladies.
2:21:37 We appreciate you.
2:21:38 We’ve been sitting here for a few hours talking about public
2:21:41 comment and book – or new book.
2:21:43 » I was going to ask to go first because I knew the way the
2:21:46 other two were going to
2:21:48 go.
2:21:49 » You should have.
2:21:50 Please don’t hesitate in the future.
2:21:51 Okay.
2:21:52 Anyone have anything else for the good of the order?
2:21:56 Hearing no further business, this meeting is adjourned.
2:22:08 [ Music ]
2:22:38 » Thank you.
2:22:39 Thank you.
2:22:40 » Thank you.