NICE COLOR VERSIONS OF PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS. AT THE [I. OPEN SESSION] [00:00:05] CONCLUSION OF OUR MEETING, WE ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC -- [II. ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] SIGNED DOCUMENTS AND SECURE ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. BOARD MEMBERS [III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA] [IV. a. First Reading of Board Policies, Administrative Regulations, and Board Bylaws (Series 0000, 1000, 2000,7000 and 9000)] MOVING ON TO A STUDY SESSION. WILL COME EVERYBODY. I AM GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO CHRISTINA. I DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS AS OF YET . SO WE WILL TURN THIS OVER TO YOU. >> HELLO. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT. THANK YOU TRUSTEES FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING FOR THE BIG THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THAT WAS PUT IN FOR THESE FIRST READING PROPOSED REVISIONS AND THANK YOU TO THE TRUSTEES WHO HAS SPENT TIME LOOKING THROUGH THIS BINDER. I KNOW IT IS TIME-CONSUMING BUT I APPRECIATE THE WORK. A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. YOU'LL HAVE TO EXCUSE MY VOICE BEFORE WE GET STARTED. THIS MEETING IS BEING LIVE STREAMED AND RECORDED. AS I SAID EARLIER, WE RAN INTO A PRINTING ISSUE WITH THE EXHIBITS FOR ONE 312.4. SO THOSE UPDATED EXHIBITS WERE PROVIDED TO TRUSTEES THAT ARE AT THE AGENDA TABLE AS WELL. I WANTED TO CALL HER, AS WE GO THROUGH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TODAY, THE SBA HAS A NEW FORMAT FOR HOW THEY ARE PRESENTING POLICIES FOR THE HEADER IS DIFFERENT AND ALL OF THE REFERENCES I GOING TO BE AT THE END OF THE POLICY INSTEAD OF MIXED IN. SO YOU WILL SEE THAT IS DIFFERENT AND NEW. AND LASTLY, THIS IS YOUR TIME AS TRUSTEES. YOU GO AS FAST OR AS SLOW AS YOU WANT. TONIGHT , THERE IS NO ACTION BEING REQUESTED. ARE GOING TO GO POLICY BY POLICY AND AN ASSIGNED STAFF MEMBER WILL VERY BRIEFLY SPEAK TO EACH ONE. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM TRUSTEES ON A POLICY, THE POLICY WILL BE BROUGHT BACK FOR SECOND READING AND APPROVAL AT THE MAY 15TH REGULAR BOARD MEETING . IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, STAFF IS OBVIOUSLY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE POLICY MAY BE BROUGHT BACK MAY 15TH FOR APPROVAL OR IT MAY BE BROUGHT BACK AT A DIFFERENT WORD MEETING IF MORE RESEARCH IS REQUIRED. SO WE WILL DISCUSS EACH POLICY. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET STARTED? >> OKAY, WONDERFUL. THE FIRST POLICY WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT TONIGHT IS BOARD POLICY 0410, NONDISCRIMINATION AND DISTRICT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF CHANGES TO THIS POLICY. ALL OF WHICH REFLECT EITHER NEW LAW, NEW ITEMS FROM THE OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS POLICY FROM TRUSTEES? OKAY. IF I GO TOO FAST, PLEASE STOP ME. I AM DOING MY BEST TO HAVE A VISUAL. BUT PLEASE CUT ME OFF IF I AM GOING TOO FAST. NEXT IS BOARD POLICY 0420 .4, CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZATION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? >> >> I DON'T WANT TO BE THAT GUY THAT I AM GOING TO BE THAT GUY. SO I SUGGEST A DIFFERENT FORMAT MARK FOR THIS MEETING. I ACTUALLY HAVE A LIST OF MAYBE, THE OTHER TRUSTEES ARE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION. THE POLICY THAT ASKS THE QUESTION ON I HAVE A LIST. I MEAN, WE GIVE TRUSTEES A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH [00:05:06] THAT LIST. >> AND OTHER TRUSTEES GO THROUGH THE LIST AND WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARE, THAT WAY? I DON'T KNOW BUT I THINK EVERYONE -- I WILL NOT PUT ANYBODY ON THE SPOT HERE IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE. >> SURE. >> PROCESSING WITH YOU. IS THERE VALUE IN RECEIVING , I AM THINKING AND GOING WAY BACK. A DOZEN YEARS AGO. ONE OF THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVES OF TONIGHT IS TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS AND GO OVER THINGS SO THAT WHEN WE BRING IT BACK, AND IS , OH, BY THE WAY, I HAVE A LAST-MINUTE CHANGE. I WAS WONDERING, IS THERE VALUE IN THE FOLLOWING THOUGHT PROCESS WE ARE DOING NOW IN TERMS OF IT DOES GET THAT AFFIRMATION FROM EACH OF US? IN ADVANCE? I DO NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE PROPOSAL EITHER. >> LIKEWISE. WE HAVE BEEN HERE, MOS OF US HAVE BEEN HERE. WE WOULD NOT SIT HERE INDEFINITELY. THERE IS A REASON THERE IS A CONSENT CALENDAR. A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE NOT , I DO NOT THINK THERE IS A LOT OF CONTROVERSY TONIGHT. TO BE CLEAR. BUT WE HAVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR A REASON. THERE IS, I THINK, A LOT OF TIME BETWEEN THE FIRST READING AND PERHAPS THE FIRST BOARDING WHICH IS MAY 15TH OR ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION. SO IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC COLOR FROM BOARD MEMBERS WERE THERE ARE QUESTIONS, KNOWING THIS BOARD, I AM ASSUMING THERE IS PROBABLY SOME PURITY AND WHAT THOSE PARTICULAR CALLOUTS WOULD BE. SO I AM NOT EVEN OPPOSED TO, HEY, IF YOU HAVE A SHORT LIST, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO A PROCESS SO THAT WAY, A PERSON IS NOT WAITING INDEFINITELY. >> AND I CAN -- PROPOSE? I'M SORRY. >> >> ARE YOU SURE? MAYBE I COULD PROPOSE SOMETHING SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE. I CAN SAY THE NAME OF THE POLICY AND THE TITLE. AND STAFF DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO SPEAK TO IT IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS. THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS GO MUCH QUICKER. WE COULD STILL BUY QUALITY BY POLICY BUT I WILL SEE THE TITLE AND IF NO QUESTIONS, BECAUSEA LOT OF THESE ARE LAW, BLAH, BLAH. AND THEN -- AN THE SAME INTEREST OF THIS PARTICULAR POLICY UPDATE THAT LARGELY SEEMS TO BE STATE LAW. WE HAVE GOT TO KICK THE TIRES ON IT AND MAKE THE NECESSARY UPDATE. NOT A LOT OF CONTROVERSY HERE. NOT A LOT OF CONTROVERSY HERE. SO THIS IS NOT AN EFFORT TO LIMIT COMMUNICATION. >> EXPEDITING. JUST A SLIGHT HYBRID REQUEST THEN? IF THERE IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN, ANYTHING THAT IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IS NOT BASED ON CHANGES TO THE LAW OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS? TO HIGHLIGHT. OTHER THAN THAT, I LIKE -- WHERE WE ARE GOING WITH IT. >> AND ANOTHER SUGGESTION IS , IF WE LOOK AT THE TABLE OF CONTENTS, WE COULD SAY , ARE THERE ANY IN THE QUAD ZERO THAT TRUSTEES WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT? WE COULD CHECK THOSE OUT AND GO JUST TO THOSE IN ORDER. AND THEN ANY OF THE THAT SAY MEMO. THAT WOULD BE ONE WHERE WE KNOW THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO THE CHANGE SO WE COULD MAKE SURE WE INCLUDE THAT. >> >> I THINK THE SUPERINTENDENT'S PROPOSAL. >> OTHER ANY NEW POLICIES IN THE QUAD ZERO THE TRUSTEES HAVE QUESTIONS ON? OR LIKE TO DISCUSS TWO TRUSTEE GRANT'S POINT? ANY OF THEM ARE UPDATE TO LAWS OF THAT NATURE? THIS IS A NEW DRAFT POLICY WE DID NOT PREVIOUSLY HAVE IN PLACE. SO WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT ONE. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS IN THE QUAD ZEROS THAT TRUSTEES HAVE QUESTIONS ON? >> >> 0420 POINT 4. >> THIS IS THE BOARD POLICY? OKAY. >> [00:10:11] SO I HAD A QUESTION. WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT -- A DESIGNATED INAUDIBLE ] MEETINGS AT THE CHARTER SCHOOL. GOING BACK TO THE OLD DAYS. TO THE CHARTER SCHOOLS. I WOULD COME BACK AND SHARE INFORMATION CONTINUING THAT PRACTICE. SO I AM JUST WONDERING IF THAT -- I UNDERSTAND THE SUPERINTENDENT IS MEET WITH THE CHARTER SCHOOL. >> ANGELA IS THE CHARTER LIAISON. >> I DON'T KNOW SOME OF THE HISTORY. >> I CAN SHED A LITTLE LIGHT BECAUSE I WAS ON -- BACK IN THE DAY. THERE WAS A TRUSTEE WHO WAS ON EACH OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL BOARDS. ACTUALLY, A VOTING MEMBER. AT A CERTAIN TIME, THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF YOU'RE SITTING ON THE -- BOARD, YOU MIGHT, THERE MIGHT BE THAT THAT MIGHT NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DISTRICT. BUT WHAT I THINK IS PROPOSING IS DIFFERENT FROM SITTING ON THE BOARD. AS OPPOSED TO A TRUSTEE REPRESENTING AND THE BOARD REPRESENTING THE DISTRICT. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. NOT ON THEIR DEUS . >> NO, I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT. I LIKE THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE TRUSTEES -- WITH STAFF ATTENDING THE MEETING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS STILL THE UNDERSTANDING. YOU KNOW, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEHOW, MAYBE WE ARE , I MEAN, WE WILL HAVE TO GO JUST IN-HOUSE. THAT IS THE PART THAT -- SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE ALL UNDERSTAND. THAT IS PROGRESS. >> WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THOUGH. WHEN IT SAYS THE SUPER DESIGNATED CONTACT SHALL ATTEND MEETINGS AT THE CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, DO LET ME KNOW THE CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS? >> >> SO DOES THE SUPERINTENDENT OR HER DESIGNEE REGULARLY ATTEND? >> WORTH THE POTENTIAL CHANGE OF THIS PARTICULAR POLICY , WHAT'S IS THE SUPERINTENDENT WILL TRY TO -- I MEAN, UNLESS WE SEE VALUE IN ATTENDING THE CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ON A REGULAR BASIS -- >> IT SAYS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SO WE COULD ALSO ADDRESS -- >> YEAH, YEAH. THAT WOULD BE FINE . I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT. >> SO I'M HEARING MAYBE REWORDED TO THE CONTACT SHALL ATTEND MEETINGS OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY WHEN NEEDED INSTEAD OF WHENEVER POSSIBLE? I THINK I HEARD THAT . >> WHEN NECESSARY. >> WE COULD JUST DO MAY INSTEAD OF SHALLOW. OKAY. >> YET. OTHERWISE, WE ARE ADMITTING THE POLICY WITH -- AN IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH MAY INSTEAD OF SHALLOW? >> YES. >> >> WHENEVER POSSIBLE OR DO WE WANT NECESSARY? [00:15:03] >> >> I LIKE MAY ATTEND WHEN NECESSARY. AND SHALL MEET THE REPRESENTATIVES. >> OKAY. GOT IT. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ONE PER LAUGHTER ] >> OTHER QUESTIONS ON QUAD ZEROS? OKAY. >> >> >> SO LET ME GO BACK TO -- 0420. OKAY. YEAH. >> THE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION. >> WHAT PAGE? >> THE POLICY? LIKE YEAH, THIS IS YOUR 420 POINT 4 ONE, EXHIBIT ONE. PAGE NINE UNDER THIS SECTION FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION. >> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION HERE. WHERE IT SAYS -- ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIFTH LINE. INAUDIBLE ] >> >> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 37? >> 36. RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. >> OH, OH, I SEE. >> TRYING TO CHERRY PICK >> SO MOVING TO NUMBER 15. >> PART OF THE CHARTER PETITION AND THE RENEWAL THAT THE TRUSTEES REVIEWED. THAT IS AROUND THE MISSION PRACTICES AND POLICIES. IT OUTLINES THE TERMS UNDER WHICH STUDENTS ARE ACCEPTED TO THE CHARTER. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PARENT'S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. THAT IS SOMETHING WE MONITOR. >> IS AT THE BOARD POLICY OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE? OKAY. [00:20:02] >> IS PROPOSED AND EVERYTHING IN RED TEXT IS CANCELLATION. >> GOT IT. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT? >> >> >> I ALSO SAY THERE ARE MULTIPLE POLICIES IN THIS BINDER. THERE IS THE CSEA , WHERE YOU SEE A LOT OF RED STRIKEOUT, THAT IS A COMPLETE WORD. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY NO INFORMATION. I WANT TO CALL THAT OUT. IF I CAN JUST REMIND STAFF TO PLEASE USE YOUR MICROPHONE'S. >> AND THAT COMES TO THE ROLE OF TRUSTEES EVERY YEAR. THAT OUR REQUIREMENTS. >> >> OKAY. >> NOTHING ELSE FOR QUAD ZERO? OKAY BUT I WANTED TO CALL OUT THERE IS ONE NEW POLICY. IT IS 0520 POINT ONE , CONFERENCE EVENT TARGETED SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT. THIS IS A NEW PROPOSED POLICY FROM CSEA THAT DID NOT EXIST . IT ADDRESSES THE STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND DEVELOP RESPONSE TO TITLE I REQUIREMENTS. IT PROVIDES INTERVENTIONS TO SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OR CSI, DSI, OR A TSI. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? NO? OKAY. WILL MOVE TO THE 1000 SERIES NOW. ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY POLICIES UNDER THE 1000 SERIES? >> I HAVE ONE. POLICY 1340. PAGE, I KNOW IT IS SOMEWHERE. GOODNESS. [00:25:05] >> THIS IS ACCESS TO DISTRICT RECORDS? >> YEAH. THERE IS MY QUESTION ABOUT THE MINISTRY OF REGULATION WITH THE ASSOCIATED COST OF PRINTING. THE SUPERINTENDENT CAN SAY, HEY, IT COSTS THIS MUCH BUT WHAT THEY ARE IS NOT CONNECTED TO? WHAT I'M TRYING TO PREVENT, AND THIS IS WHAT WE SAW. DOWN THE LINE SOME SUPERPOWER SUPERINTENDENT WHO DOES NOT WANT TO COMPLY OR IS TRYING TO STIFLE IT. HEY, IT IS $100 PER COPY. >> THE ACTUAL COST, RIGHT? IS THERE A ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? AND IS THERE A PRICE FOR THE COST OF PRODUCTION FOR COPIES? THERE'S NO PILOT THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO COME IN AND DO THINGS ON THEIR OWN, RIGHT? AND IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT MATERIAL AND THEY WANTED TO PAY, THEN THAT STILL COULD BE A BARRIER. MAKING SURE IT IS REASONABLE. >> HAVE ALWAYS GOTTEN THAT NUMBER FROM EAGLE COUNCIL AS IT CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. OBVIOUSLY, THE GOTTEN A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT TOTAL IS $.25 PER PAGE. WE HAVE GOTTEN THAT FROM THE PREVIOUS CONSOLE. >> THAT IS IN THE AR WITH THE COUNCIL? >> THAT IS BEEN OUR PRACTICE BUT I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE PRACTICE BUT IF IT IS IN THE AR I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS. BUT I COULD FOLLOW-UP. YEAH. HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE JUST GONE WITH WHAT LEGAL COUNCIL HAS SHARED WITH US. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. >> TO BACK ONE QUESTION ON 1115 E 1. >> ONE SECOND. IT WOULD BE PAGE FIVE. >> THIS IS NEW EXHIBIT FOR DISTRICT AND SCHOOL WEBSITES? >> LET ME SEE. YEAH. THAT IS THE TITLE. >> OKAY. >> NUMBER 15, AND IS SOMETHING THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. IT SAYS THE COPY OF EACH SCHOOL'S ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT CARD. SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN OUR CAP ACCOUNTABILITY WHERE WE TRACK? >> IT IS. >> WE TRACK OUR -- HOW THE DISTRICT IS DOING . >> IT IS. YEAH, SO THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THAT. THOSE ARE REQUIRED ANNUALLY. AND THEY ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE. ANYTHING ELSE? >> >> >> OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL THE ONES THAT HAVE THE MOST AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. WE ARE PRINTING ISSUES WITH 32 POINT 4. THOSE ARE NOT NEW POLICIES. SO WE DO NOT ADDRESS THOSE. ALL RIGHT. MOVING TO THE 2000 SERIES . THERE'S ONLY ONE POLICY IN HERE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? >> 2121 . >> 21, -- YES. GOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT. SO THERE IS THIS , THE PARAGRAPH. I DON'T KNOW. THERE ARE SOME CHANGES. BUT THE SUPERINTENDENT IS TERMINATED, THE PERSON DOES NOT GET PAID 12 MONTHS TIMES 18. IT WAS VERY CONFUSING. >> IT IS A COMPLICATED FORMULA. >> WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT A SUPERINTENDENT IN THE FUTURE WE HIRE AND, OH, THE CONTRACT HAS FOUR YEARS LEFT AND WE ARE PAYING OUT THE MAXIMUM OF THE FOUR FORCES THE FIVE DAYS. >> THE MAXIMUM IS 12 MONTHS. >> 12 MONTH >> NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT ON THE CONTRACT. >> I'M NOT SURE THAT PARAGRAPH SAYS THAT. >> IT IS SO PARENTHETICAL. 2121. >> AT THE VERY BOTTOM, THE NUMBER OF MONTHS LEFT ON THE CONTRACT FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT, THE CELL RIGHT MULTIPLIED BY 12. WHICHEVER -- >> GOT IT. >> TO YOUR POINT, I THINK WITH THE TRACK CHANGES, IT WAS ALL CLEARED UP, IT WOULD READ -- >> OKAY. THAT'S FINE. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. >> ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE 2000? OKAY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG. 3000. SORRY. SEVEN. I JUST WOULDN'T [00:30:09] ORDER GOOD ONE, TWO, THREE. LAUGHTER ] 7000. MY APOLOGIES. >> ANY QUESTIONS ON THE 7000? >> I HAVE ONE ABOUT -- OKAY, I WILL WAIT. THAT IS THE DEVELOPER PIECE. >> WE COULD CHECK THEM OFTEN THAT WAY WE COULD LOOK IN ORDER. BECAUSE WHICH ONE IS THE ONE THAT? >> THE WHEN I AM REFERRING TO IS 7211. >> >> YEAH. THE 9000. OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE UP, TRUSTEE GRANT. >> GOT IT? >> >> 7211. THE DEVELOPER FEES. UNDERSTANDING ON THE RECORD, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE. JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S DISCOURSE . >> WE HAD AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION PREVIOUSLY. IT BASICALLY STRIKES THE WHOLE ADMIN REGULATION. I AM NOT SURE -- I GUESS THE POLICY IS MORE POWERFUL? I AM GUESSING? >> MAYBE THE POLICY SHOULD COME BEFORE? I'M NOT SURE. BUT AS FAR AS, LIKE, WE ARE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF THIS NOW. ALMOST TO A T. YEAH, TO A T. SO IT IS NOT NEW FOR US. BUT MOVING IN. >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM READING IT THROUGH. WE ALREADY DO ALL OF THIS. OH, THEY ARE MOVING IT. >> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED WILL BE FROM THE BYLAWS TO THE RED FROM THE RED TO THE BYLAWS. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE 7000? SUE? ARE YOU GOOD FOR THE 7000? OKAY. YAY! 9000. SO I AGREE WITH ROBIN. I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO GO IN ORDER GOOD I HEARD THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT STUDENT BOARD MEMBERS WHICH IS 9150. >> THE AGENDA AND MATERIALS OR MEETING CONDUCT? >> START WITH -- >> >> WE WILL START WITH TRUSTEE GRANT WITH 9012. BOARD MEMBER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS . >> THIS IS A LITTLE TRICKY AND WE MAY NOT HAVE AN ANSWER HEAR PAGE ONE IT IS WHATEVER WHATEVER IS OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM TO MEDICATE WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT DISTRICT DOES REPORT ACTIVITIES, THE BOARD MEMBER SHALL NOT BLOCK ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC BASED ON THE VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED BY THAT INDIVIDUAL. THIS TO ME IS ALWAYS SEEM LIKE A VERY LOOSE , BUT NOT PROPERLY GUIDED OR TRAINED, BY LAW. BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE IN THE CAMPAIGN HAVE PRIVATE PAGES. AND THEN IT MAY BE A PUBLIC FACING PAGE, RIGHT? SO WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INSTRUCTION OF THE DISTRICT BUSINESS. IF THE PERSON IS VULGAR AND COMMUNICATING IN A WAY THAT IS THREATENING , THAT COULD BE THAT PERSON'S VIEWPOINT. SO I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE, ALTHOUGH I WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE THAT , RECOGNIZING TO BLOCK A PERSON. I THINK THIS NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE PARITY PERHAPS FROM LEGAL IN TERMS OF PRACTICE. NOT NECESSARILY ON THE BYLAW. IT SHOULD SAY, BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD BE TRAINED ON THIS. OUR LEGAL COUNCIL USED TO DO IT IN AND THEY KIND OF WAITED A LITTLE BIT AND SAID WELL, THAT IS STILL KIND OF A RIGHT AREA. BOARD MEMBERS IS A PRACTICAL APPLICATION. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF. INSTEAD OF HAVING SOMEONE BRING YOU IN AND SAYING UNTRUE THINGS. BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD NOT HAVE THE FEAR WHERE I WILL NOT MEDICATE THIS PERSON OR CATCH A LAWSUIT BECAUSE I WILL BLOCK THIS PERSON . >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM FOLLOWING IT. I DO NOT DISAGREE BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. >> A SEPARATE BOARD BYLAW IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS, THE BOARD DID APPROVE ADDING WAS RELATED TO THE INDEMNIFICATION OF BOARD MEMBERS. IN THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE. LOOKING TO PROPOSE ADDING THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE IN HERE? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR CLARITY FROM LEGAL AND [00:35:02] PRACTICE? >> AND PRACTICE. YEAH. >> IT WAS JUST A LEGAL UPDATE ON THIS VERY TOPIC. >> YES , THERE'S NOT BEEN A DOLLAR POLICY REVISION YET. I LOOKED AT THAT JUST LAST WEEK. THAT IS A THING WITH THESE POLICIES AND THEY'RE CONSTANTLY COMING OUT WITH NEW ONES. SO I EXPECT THAT THE REVISION FROM CSEA IN YOUR FUTURE. >> CONFER WITH LEGAL COUNSEL TO MAKE SURE IT MATCHES . >> ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT OR YOU WANT CLARITY? NOT NECESSARILY ADDED TO THE POLICY? OKAY. OKAY. >> I THINK THOUGH WORDING TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT -- REPORT ACTIVITIES , IT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TYPES ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. BECAUSE A LOT -- >> -- IF THERE IS A PRIVATE THE COUNT AND SOMEBODY IS HARASSING , YOU CAN, THAT MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE WHERE BOARD MEMBERS CAN HAVE SOME PRIVACY ONLINE WITH SOCIAL MEDIA. I THINK THE OFFICIAL BUSINESS , BOARD ACTIVITIES , FOR NOW, IN THAT CASE, >> I AM ALSO NOT A LEGAL EXPERT. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. >> >> HOPING MY INTERPRETATION OF IT -- >> >> I TURNED DOWN MY MICROPHONE FOR MY DISCLAIMER . >> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE? I THINK THE NEXT ONE IS 9150. STUDENT BOARD MEMBERS. YES? >> OKAY. TRUSTEE MORA, YOU ARE UP FOR THERE SOME STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON YOUR BASED ON EXISTING PRACTICE THAT I CAN SPEAK TO IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >> THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS JUST ABOUT THE SELECTION OF THE STUDENT BOARD MEMBER. SO IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT , MAYBE MORE INFORMALLY . I DON'T KNOW IF IT NEEDS TO BE FORMALIZED. THAT WE ALTERNATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL TO HIGH SCHOOL WITH A STUDENT BOARD MEMBER. I DID NOT SEE THAT MUCH IN THE POLICY. SO I WANTED TO ASK WHY THAT IS? >> CORRECT. WE DO ROTATE BETWEEN A DIFFERENT HIGH SCHOOL AND TRENTON HIGH SCHOOL AND -- THEY HAVE THEIR OWN EXECUTIVE COUNCILS BUT AS FAR AS IT ENLISTED IN THE POLICY , JUST AS THEY WORK WITH PRINCIPALS ON A ROTATING BASIS TO SCHOOL SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS FOR CURRENT SOPHOMORES AND JUNIORS IN GOOD STANDING SO THEY WOULD BE A JUNIOR OR SENIOR ON THE EURO SERVICE. ARE YOU PROPOSING MAYBE ADDING THE NAMES OF THE SCHOOLS? WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL? >> IT IS GETTING TRANSLATED TO -- >> NO, THAT IS TOTALLY FAIR . >> AND THAT IS ALTERNATING SCHOOL SITES, THAT I AM OKAY WITH THAT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. TO MAKE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE STUDENT BOARD MEMBER FEES? THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WERE JUST TO KIND OF PUT IN WRITING SOME OF THE PRACTICES WE HAVE . SPECIFICALLY, WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE. ON PAGE TWO. IT TALKS ABOUT THE STUDENT BOARD MEMBER BEING AWARDED FOR THEIR YEAR-LONG SERVICE. AND THE POLICY CURRENTLY LIFTS VERIFICATION IN A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY PROGRAM. >> SINCE WE HAVE ADDED CTE PATHWAYS, WE HAVE REALLY GONE WITH TRADE SCHOOL OR EQUIVALENT PROGRAMS. WE HAVE NOT REQUIRED THEM, LISA LAST EIGHT YEARS TO BE IN COLLEGE. I WANTED TO PUT THAT IN WRITING AT THE DISTRICT PRACTICE. I ALSO WANTED TO BRING UP , IT IS OBVIOUSLY UP [00:40:04] TO TRUSTEES, $500 IS NOT WHAT IT WAS MANY YEARS AGO. SINCE WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS POLICY, WE WANTED TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, WE COULD DO THAT. >> THIS MIGHT BE AN UNPOPULAR OPINION. I THINK IF WE ARE GIVING SOMEBODY $500 OR WHATEVER AMOUNT, THEY SHOULD JUST HAVE IT. I DO NOT THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CONNECTED TO THE COLLEGE APPLICATION OR CTE. YOU DID BOARD SERVICE, RIGHT? THAT IS YOUR THANK YOU FOR BOARD SERVICE. REPRESENTING STUDENTS READ >> WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPENSATE -- AN WELL, THAT IS TERRIBLE. >> >> I AM NOT OPPOSED TO RAISING IT TO A G. >> 1000. >> TO A G PRINT I'M SORRY. >> 1K. >> I GOT YOU, I GOT YOU. >> >> TRUSTEE MORA? ANY THOUGHTS ON THE G? >> I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK THE NEXT ONE, TREVOR, DID YOU SAY YOU HAD QUESTIONS ON 9220? >> YES, 9220. SO UNDER CAMPING CONDUCT. THAT IS PAGE THREE AT THE BOTTOM. >> OKAY. >> IS A BOARD MEMBER SHALL NOT EXTEND -- OR EXCEPT -- THAT IS FINE. WHAT WORRIES ME IS THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHING A DEDICATED FUND FOR THE STUDENT ELECTION TO THE BOARD PROVIDED THAT THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO ALL CANDIDATES WERE QUALIFIED. SO THIS ESSENTIALLY IS PUBLIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. IN A SENSE. I AM NOT SURE WHAT. I AM NOT COOL WITH THAT. I WILL JUST SAY THAT. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD GET OUT OF HAND WITHOUT AN TRAN18 WITH IT. WHAT IS THE BOARD GOING TO ALLOW IN TERMS OF FUNDS, IF THAT SORT OF THING WERE TO GO INTO A BYLAW? I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT. I WOULD PROBABLY PULL THAT FROM CONSENT, JUST FOR THE RECORD. IT IS A CAMPAIGN TO RAISE MONEY AD DO THAT. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE TO BE USEFUL. SOME STATES DO PUBLIC FUNDING CAMPAIGNS AND IT IS VERY LIMITED AT A LOT DIFFERENT. THERE IS REALLY NOTHING HEREIN WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THAT COULD BE VERY DICEY. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK . >> BY ANY CHANCE, DOES ANYONE KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE A COMPANY OF GOVERNMENT CODE 85300? >> I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF IT ON ME. THIS IS THE CSEA RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS POLICY. I COULD FOLLOW UP AND DO ABORT COMMUNICATION AND SEE WHERE IT CAME FROM. >> YEAH, I WOULD JUST BE CURIOUS. IT FEELS LIKE IT IS THE SAME AS WHAT WE ARE ASKING WHEN FILING TAXES DUE DOING THE PAPER. AND THEN I HIT SUBMIT. >> IT MIGHT ALSO BE THAT SOME DISTRICTS, I THINK, THEY PAY THE COST. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY. THE FILING FEES. SO I THINK THEY MAY PAY THAT COST BUT I CANNOT REMEMBER THIS BACK IN THE 2000, BEFORE 2000. WHAT THEY DID. BUT I DO THINK SOME DISTRICTS MIGHT DO THAT. >> SOME DO. >> PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE, I DO NOT KNOW OF A DISTRICT THAT HELPS TO PAY FOR THE CAMPAIGN. >> CLARIFICATION. >> YEAH, IF THAT IS PART OF -- >> I CAN SEE SOME LIMITED APPLICATION. LET'S SAY SMALLER OR WORLD DISTRICTS. HAPPENING TO FOLLOW RECRUITING THE CANDIDATES. THE REGISTRAR FINALLY CAN CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE , RIGHT? AND SO, YEAH. >> THERE IS NO COST IF YOU DID NOT SUBMIT BALLOT STATEMENT. >> IT DEPENDS ON THE RACE. >> AT LEAST FROM WHAT I REMEMBER FROM FOUR TO GO. THERE IS NO COST UNLESS YOU WANT TO DO A PALLET AND YOU CAN GET ON THE BALLOT FOR FREE . THINK IT [00:45:05] IS SIGNATURES AND LUKE? >> NO, NOT EVEN SIGNATURES. >> YOU JUST REGISTER . YOU FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK AND YOU ARE ON THE BALLOT . >> WELL, THAT I WOULD HAVE A PARTICULARLY HARD TIME WITH THIS. >> AND IF NO ONE ELSE WINDS UP AND YOU'RE THE ONLY CANDIDATE, YOU GET THE BALLOT BE REFUNDED BECAUSE THERE IS NO POINT IN ANYTHING BEING PRINTED AT THAT POINT. >> DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT THE IRS IS TAKING FROM ISP? INAUDIBLE ] >> IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE -- >> THE GOVERNMENT CODE . >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE EXAMPLES? >> I DO NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I THINK OF YOU NORMALLY DO AT THIS POINT IS SEEK LEGAL COUNCIL ADVICE AND FOLLOW UP WITH TRUSTEES, EXPLAINING WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS GOOD WHEN IT IS BROUGHT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION FOR TRUSTEE APPROVAL, AND TRUSTEE GRANT WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT . THERE COULD BE FURTHER ACTION FROM TRUSTEES AT THAT POINT TO FOLLOW-UP TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS . >> I THINK THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE THAT. WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS INCLUDED. WHEN THE DISTRICT REACHES OUT TO CANDIDATES TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM. HERE IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN YOUR ROLE. PUBLIC FUNDS. OR HANDING THEM A PIECE OF PAPER. THAT IS PRINTED IN THE DISTRICT. WITH THAT COUNT AS PUBLIC FUNDS TO HELP SOMEBODY IN THIS CAMPAIGN? I GUESS I'M GETTING REALLY SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. IT COULD BE, RIGHT? IF WE CAN GET AN EXAMPLE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL >> SO I PULLED THE GOVERNMENT CODE 83500 BUT IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE DOES NOT CALL OUT SCHOOL BOARDS AT ALL. >> MAY ACCEPT PUBLIC MONIES FOR ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE IF THE STATE OR LOCAL THAT ENTITY ESTABLISHES A DEDICATED FUND FOR THIS PURPOSE BY STATUTE OR RESOLUTION OR CHARTER AND BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE TWO, PUBLIC MONIES HELP -- INAUDIBLE ] >> IT SOUNDS LIKE IF YOU HAVE THAT FUND AVAILABLE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. >> OKAY, I WILL FORMALLY FOLLOW UP WITH TRUSTEES ON THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THE NEXT ONE. I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO 93 21.1. THE PILEUP THAT I KNOW THAT WAS NOT THE ONE THAT THE TRUSTEES LISTED. BUT WAIT. I'M SORRY. I SKIP ONE? MEETINGS AND NOTICES COULD EXCUSE ME. I WANT TO: THE TRUSTEE ATTENTION TO THIS ONE AS THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS ONE. GIVE ME A MOMENT TO GET THERE. >> 9320? >> 9320. OKAY. IF I CAN TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE SEVEN. THIS IS OUR POLICY THAT SPECIFICALLY OUTLINES HOW WE DO TELECONFERENCING AND ALIGNMENT WITH THE BROWN ACT. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NEW LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED BY CSEA FOR TELECONFERENCING DOING A PERSONAL EMERGENCY. THAT IS DESCRIBED AND TELECONFERENCING FOR JUST CAUSE. THERE ARE SOME STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THERE. BECAUSE WHAT THIS LANGUAGE DID NOT DO WAS REALLY OUTLINE ANYWAY A TIMELINE FOR WHICH TRUSTEES CAN REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. THERE ARE LOGISTICS THAT GO ON TO SWITCHING A BOARD MEETING TO A HYBRID FORMAT FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. AS IT IS WRITTEN, WHICH IS THE CSEA LINKAGE, TRUSTEE COULD REQUEST FIVE MINUTES BEFORE A BOARD MEETING STARTED TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. THAT WOULD PROMPT STAFF TO, WELL, BE SCRAMBLING, QUITE FRANKLY, TO FIGURE OUT THE LIVE PUBLIC SYSTEMS, REPOST THE AGENDA. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AFTER CONSULTING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, ANY TRUSTEE WISHING TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY FOR A PERSONAL EMERGENCY OR FOR JUST CAUSE, THEY WOULD BE ASKED TO [00:50:02] NOTIFY THE BOARD RESIDENT AND THE SUPERINTENDENT IN WRITING AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY, BUT NO LATER THAN 24 HOURS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED START TIME. I WANTED TO CALL ATTENTION TO THAT AS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION . >> THAT IS A GREAT CALLOUT. TO ME, PUTTING A TIME CAP ON AN EMERGENCY KIND OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE. THE SITUATION BEING EMERGENCY, RIGHT? A GENUINE EMERGENCY. AFTER THAT, I GOT HIT BY A CAR AND BROKE I LIKE BUT IT WILL NOT BE 24 HOURS NOTICE BUT I MEAN, IT COULD BE THE TIME IF IT MAY BE NOT 24 HOURS NOTICE. IT COULD HAPPEN I WANT TO MAKE THE MEETING. SO JUST, I WOULD BE OKAY WITH IT IF IT WAS TELECONFERENCING IN A NORMAL SITUATION. IF YOU'RE NO -- IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE -- THIS HAPPENED TO ME AND THAT IS YOUR SCHEDULE. YOU SHOULD NOT PUT THAT BURDEN ON STAFF. IT IS CALLED AN EMERGENCY. SO AN EMERGENCY CAN BE UP TO THE MINUTE. MIGHT TWO CENTS. >> I THINK WE NEED TO HONOR STAFF. I KNOW THE WORK YOU ALL DO. IN VERY IMPORTANT. TRUSTEES CAN BE CAVALIER ABOUT TIMES SOMETIMES. OH, OKAY, I WILL JUST GO TO THE CASINO. HAVE TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL. IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, IT COULD BE UP-TO-THE-MINUTE, RIGHT? EVEN IF THINGS WERE A LITTLE MORE DICEY OR TRICKY. >> I WOULD ASSUME -- IN A CRISIS. PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE CALLING AND TRYING TO WORRY ABOUT THE 24 HOUR CRISIS TIME. SO I THAT , LIKE, LIKE YOU SAID , HIT BY A CAR. BROKE IS LIKE, YOU KNOW? HAD IT IN A CAST. BUT HE IS GOOD COMING HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING, THAT IS ONE THING. IN THAT SENSE, I THINK IT IS, YOU KNOW, OUT OF RESPECT TO DO THAT. I THINK, YEAH, I WOULD SUGGEST WE LEAVE IT FOR NOW AND THEN COME BACK IF WE NEED TO COME BACK TO IT AND THINK ABOUT THIS. THIS DOES NOT SEEM VERY -- REDUCING IT TO 12 HOURS OR SIX HOURS. >> I SEE THE POTENTIAL FOR USE OF THIS ACTION. BUT I ALSO INKED THAT THERE COULD BE A LEGITIMATE EMERGENCY THAT, YOU KNOW, DOES NOT CONFORM TO IT IN A TIMEFRAME. THAT IS WHY, ONCE AGAIN, I AM USING MIGHT NOT LAW DEGREE TO SCROLL THROUGH THE LOT RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, CHRISTINA. THE YELLOW IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I AM NOT SEEING ANYTHING. AGAIN, I WILL NEED PERUSING AND NOT READING THOROUGHLY. I'M NOTHING ANYTHING AND GOVERNMENT CODE 51513. THE PICS A TIME CONSTRAINT . >> NO, CORRECT. THAT IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN YELLOW BUT IT WAS LEGAL -- IT WAS LEGAL COUNSEL RECOMMENDATION. OUR LEGAL COUNSEL HAS SHARED THAT HE HAS SEEN DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THIS POLICY IN PLACE BUT TO YOUR POINT, IT IS UP AND TELL THE LAST MINUTE AND IT IS THE BOARD OF FAST SCRAMBLING RIGHT BEFORE A BOARD MEETING. NO I HEAR YOU ON THE 24 HOURS BUT I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE A CUT UP WHITE. AND THEN PERHAPS A SENTENCE OR LANGUAGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN SECTIONS ARE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THE BOARD PRESIDENT I DO NOT KNOW HOW WE WANT TO WORD THAT. BUT I AM VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT NOT HAVING A CUT OFF POINT. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS REQUIRED TO SWITCH IT OVER TO THAT FORMAT. >> WHAT BEHAVIOR ARE WE ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIX? RIGHT? THESE ARE FAIR POINTS, OKAY. HAVE AN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS HAVE ACTUALLY HAD IN THE DISTRICT? THE STAFF DOES NOT HAVE TO ANSWER NOT GOOD BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THINGS, EMERGENCY, NEED TELECONFERENCIN G. IN MY EIGHT YEARS, I AM NOT SURE I HAVE SEEN THAT. >> AND FOR ALSO CONTACT . THE LAW HAS BEEN CHANGING LIKE EVERY 15 MINUTES SINCE THE PANDEMIC STARTED. WE WERE USUALLY OPERATING UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WITH THE VARIANCES PERMITTED TO BOTH THAT AND THE BROWN ACT. YEAH. AND THEN THERE WAS A LAW, BUT IT WAS A ONE-YEAR LAW THAT EXPIRED. AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER LAW THAT ADDED THREE MORE MONTHS AND THEN THERE WAS A REVISION TO THAT. THAT WAS GOING FORWARD WHICH ALLOWS THAT A QUORUM HAS TO BE PRESENT . [00:55:02] THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST THREE BOARD MEMBER PRESENTS NO MATTER WHAT IN ORDER FOR TO BE A LEGIT MEETING. YOU CAN THEORETICALLY ALLOW PARTICIPATION. DOES ANYBODY KNOW, DO THE PERSONAL EMERGENCY OR JUST CAUSE PROVISIONS , ARE THOSE FROM THE NEWEST LAW? >> YES. >> SO ALONG WITH THE QUESTION, TO YOUR QUESTION, THIS IS NEVER HAPPENED IN EIGHT YEARS? IT COULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET AT FROM THE PREVIOUS EIGHT YEARS. >> HAPPEN IF I CAN CHIME IN? DANCE YOUR QUESTION. UNDER TRADITIONAL TELECONFERENCING, THE NORMAL BROWN ACT, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE GOING TO PARTICIPATE , I USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON A BUSINESS TRIP, YOU TELL ME TRACE IN ADVANCE . HEY, I WANT TO TELECONFERENCE. HALF OF GOLF AHEAD TO THE HOTEL YOU ARE CALLING FROM TO LOOK AT THE AGENDA. WE ANNOUNCE AT THE START OF THE MEETING THAT YOU ARE PARTICIPATING FROM WHATEVER HOTEL IT. SO THAT IS NORMAL BROWN ACT TELECONFERENCING. THAT IS OUTLINED ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN PAGE SIX. SO THIS IS SEPARATE FROM THAT. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I'VE HAD MULTIPLE REQUESTS FROM TRUSTEES WITHIN A FEW HOURS OF THE BOARD MEETING TO TELECONFERENCE IN. FOR VARIOUS REASONS BUT I HAD TO TELL THEM, OH, I AM SORRY BUT UNDER TRADITIONAL TELECONFERENCING PROVISIONS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE AGENDA HAS TO BE POSTED 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE AND THEN THE OTHERS UP FOR THE MEETING IN PERSON OR NOT. BUT I'VE HAD THAT REQUEST MULTIPLE TIMES. >> SO THAT IS UNDER CRYSTAL CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY THERE'S AN EMERGENCY. AN ACTUAL DISTRICT EMERGENCY. RIGHT? THERE ARE ACTIONS THAT TAKE FORFEITS WRITTEN ACTIONS TO THE MAJORITY. LET'S SAY IT HAPPENS AND I AM SICK. I'M SICK WITH COVID. THERE IS ANOTHER ALL TAKE OR A PLAGUE. BUT YOU NEED ME AT THE BOAT. I DID NOT GET TO TALK TO YOU WITHIN 24 HOURS BECAUSE I CANNOT MAKE IT TO THE MEETING, I COULD NOT TELECONFERENCING. SO I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT IN TERMS OF THE LOGICAL EXTREMES. IT IS CALLED EMERGENCY. WE ARE TRYING TO TWEAK THE TIMEFRAME ON AN EMERGENCY. I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH MAYBE THIS SETS THE PRECEDENT BUT NOT REQUIRING TO DISCLOSE ANY DISABILITY OR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS. THAT IS FINE. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO USE DISCERNMENT AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT ELECTED DOES GET SOME -- THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, RIGHT? WE HAVE IS THEY DO NOT WANT TO ABUSE IT. I THINK THERE ARE TOOLS FOR THE GOVERNING BOARD TO HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE. THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE BOARD, NOT AT THE STAFF LEVEL. >> SO CLARIFICATION. I AM USING MY IMPLEMENTATION HATS HERE. LOOKING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TELECONFERENCING IF THERE IS SOME EMERGENCY. UNTIL JANUARY OF 2026, WHICH IS WHEN IT EXPIRES. OR IT GETS REMOVED OR WHATEVER. SO TO MAKE A NOTE WE PROBABLY SHOULD LEAVE IT AT THIS BOARD BYLAWS SOMETIME IN 2026. IT SAYS, WITH APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD. >> YEP. >> SO IF THERE IS A REQUEST FOR AN EMERGENCY FROM ANY ONE OF THE BYLAWS, THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT EMERGENCY TELECONFERENCING PARTICIPATION . >> RECORD THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING THINK THAT WOULD BE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. OKAY, I JUST REPEATED WHAT YOU SENT THERE. >> >> THIS IS INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED. THE PERSONAL EMERGENCY IS ONLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE JUST CAUSE. AND THERE IS VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR EACH. SO -- >> BECAUSE I AM KIND OF LEANING TOWARD , I MEAN, I AM TORN ON THIS. I DO NOT -- THE SITUATION WE COULD FIND OURSELVES IN IS NOT WANTING TO ALLOW IT BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL ABUSE, RIGHT? RIGHT? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID THAT NOW PUTS US IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION IN POTENTIALLY OPEN SESSION. SO HERE IS HOW IT COULD WORK. THE SUPERINTENDENT HAS INDIVIDUAL PHONE CALLS WITH US WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE THE BROWN ACT TO LET US KNOW THE REQUESTS THAT WOULD BE COMING OUR WAY. >> SIMPLY AN INFORMATION ITEM. WE DO NOT TALK AMONGST OURSELVES BECAUSE THAT COULD BE A VIOLATION. AT WHICH POINT, WE [01:00:04] ARE FORCED TO EITHER VOTE YES OR NO WITH THAT DISCUSSION, OR TO THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT WHY . >> CORRECT. BACK IN THE SITUATION THAT THIS EMERGENCY IS ACTUALLY USED FOR ALL THAT SAID, I THINK I'M LEANING TOWARD AGREEING WITH TRUSTEE GRANT. AS AWKWARD AS THAT WOULD BE, THAT GIVES US THE SAFEGUARDS. THOSE THAT WE POTENTIALLY NEED. AND I THINK I AM AGREEING WITH I DO NOT LIKE PUTTING THAT TIME CAP ON WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER WHEN AN EMERGENCY IS GOING TO START HERE. >> JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT . WE HAVE HAD TOUGH CONVERSATIONS AT THIS DAY IS WITH BOARD MEMBER -- DAIS WITH BOARD MEMBER ACCOUNTABILITY. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. I MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THIS, WHATEVER. BUT BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AN OBLIGATION FOR THAT ACCOUNTABILITY. I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM SAYING, LOOK FOR THIS IS A BEHAVIOR THAT IS HAPPENED ROUTINELY. REGARDLESS OF XYZ. THERE IS A JOB AND RESPONSIBILITY HERE BUT I THINK THAT REST WITH THE BOARD. PERSONALLY. >> I THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I WAS SAYING. LAUGHTER ] >> DEPARTURE THAN FROM -- IN SAYING THERE'S AN EMERGENCY. CAN YOU LOGON? AND SAYING , NO, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE AGENDA WAS NOT POSTED. AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE. AS OPPOSED TO THEN, THAT IS NEW FOR US. THAT IS A NEW DYNAMIC . THAT WOULD BE A NEW DYNAMIC FOR THAT BOARD. I KIND OF WRESTLE WITH THAT . >> THERE'S A RELATED QUESTION THEN. THE WAY THE POLICY IS WRITTEN IS IT REQUIRES A TRUSTEE TO INFORM THE DISTRICT AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE TO IT. WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION OF THE DISTRICT? IN TERMS OF IF THEY RECEIVE THAT REQUEST. HOWEVER, IN THOSE 24 HOURS, 48 HOURS, SEVEN MINUTES , WHAT OBLIGATIONS WE WANT TO HOLD THE DISTRICT TO IN TERMS OF FACILITATING REMOTE PARTICIPATION? I THINK THAT IS WHERE I WOULD ASK WHAT IS REASONABLE. >> HONESTLY, I DEPENDS ON HOW THE DAY IS GOING AND BOARD MEETING DAYS , YOU KNOW HOW IT IS, RIGHT? AT LEAST A COUPLE OF HOURS BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE US TO REPUBLISH AND AMEND THE AGENDA. REPUBLISH THE AGENDA AND REDISTRIBUTE IT. SET UP A SECOND SCREENING HERE FOR TWO WAY AUDIOVISUAL. AND THAT INCLUDES LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT, RIGHT? SO AT LEAST A COUPLE OF HOURS. DO YOU WANT ME TO PUT A NUMBER TO IT? NOON? >> I AM JUST WONDERING IF WE WANT TO NOT PUT THE ONUS ON THE TRUSTEE TO REPORT AND MAKE THE REQUEST AND NOTIFY WITHIN 24 HOURS TO GIVE THE DISTRICT STAFF A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO SAY , WE WILL DO OUR BEST, HOWEVER, IF IN THAT 24 HOUR WINDOW , OR 12 HOUR WINDOW, WHATEVER. >> YEAH. IN THAT DISCUSSION, I THINK >> I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING. >> OKAY. >> >> YOU KNOW, I I CAN RELATE TO THIS. A YEAR AGO, HAVING I DO NOT THINK I CAN SHOW UP IN THAT CONDITION. >> QUESTION IS CAN I DO IT REMOTE? CAN I PARTICIPATE? SHE SAID NO. AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. SO IN YOUR SEAT, YOU GOING TO, YOU KNOW, AND THERE WAS NO WAY I COULD POSSIBLY. I COULD NOT DO IT. SO IN THAT SENSE, I DID NOT FEEL LIKE LIKE IT WAS A DECISION THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE WORD? IT WAS [01:05:05] OUT OF PLACE, SO TO SPEAK. >> THAT THE LAW HAS ALSO CHANGED. >> I KNOW. BUT I AM SAYING, I DID NOT FEEL LIKE THAT. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES ON BEHIND THE SCENES AND WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN. THE THING IS, THAT THEN THERE WAS , YOU KNOW, THERE IS ALWAYS THAT HOPE IT IF YOU'RE NOT THERE, AND EVEN IF THE VOTE, EVEN IF SOMETHING CAN PASS WITHOUT YOUR VOTE, THERE IS STILL THE IDEA THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS NOT THERE. >> AND THAT IS BROUGHT UP. >> PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> SO WHAT A COMPROMISE BE THAT NO LATER THAN NOON THE DAY OF THE MEETING? THEN THAT GIVES , YOU KNOW, SOMETIME FOR REDOING PUBLISHING, SETTING UP, GETTING READY. >> THAT IS WHERE I GO BACK TO WHERE MY COMPROMISE THEORETICALLY WAS. I HAD NOT PUT A TIME ON IT. BUT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH MICAH THAT AN EMERGENCY CANNOT BE CONTROLLED. BUT I WANTED TO FIND A WAY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, ROBIN. YEAH, SAYING, NOTIFICATION IS NOT PROVIDED TO STAFF PRIOR TO 12:00 NOON ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING OR WHATEVER TIME YOU DID TAKE, THE DISTRICT MAY , IT GIVES THE DISTRICT TO NOT -- BECAUSE THIS POLICY IS ABOUT HOW A BOARD MEMBER OPERATES . THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT THE DISTRICT , THERE IS AN IMPLIED DISTRICT OBLIGATION. TO FACILITATE THE BOARD MEMBER REMARKED PARTICIPATION IN THESE EMERGENCIES. SO I AM RECOMMENDING AN ARGUMENTATION. IT SAYS, REASONABLENESS OF IT IS NOT ON THE BOARD MEMBER AND WE ARE SORRY FOR THE LAST-MINUTE EMERGENCE DAY. THIS IS THE PERSON TO NOTIFY US . BUT IT GIVES US TO SAY, WE WILL TRY OUR BEST BUT WE CANNOT PROMISE IF WE DO NOT GET THE INFORMATION. >> YOU CAN TAKE THE TIME OFF BUT THEN SAY, YOU KNOW, THE DISTRICT WILL TRY TO MEET THAT WHENEVER POSSIBLE. >> I DO NOT WANT TO SEE A SITUATION WHERE THE BOARD CANNOT LITERALLY DO IT OR IT IS SACRIFICING THINGS THAT NEED TO GET DONE BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING ONE OF THOSE DAYS. >> SO WOULD TRUSTEES BE COMFORTABLE? THAT LANGUAGE EXISTS IN TWO PLACES, RIGHT? THE PERSONAL EMERGENCY AND THEN ON PAGE EIGHT FOR JUST CAUSE. IF I TOOK ANOTHER STAB AT THIS LANGUAGE AND RENTED BY LEGAL AND SENT IT OUT TO TRUSTEES TO CONSIDER IT, AND THEN IT COMES BACK FOR APPROVAL ? >> SURE. I CAN SEE SOME ACTIONS. >> I WANTED TO CALL OUT IN TWO PLACES TIED TO THIS. THERE IS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THE TECH COMPONENT. SO CURRENTLY, AS THE STATUTE EXISTS , IF THE BOARD MEMBER PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FOR EITHER JUST CAUSE OR PERSONAL NECESSITY HAS ANY SORT OF TECH ISSUE, THE MEETING HAS TO STOP UNTIL THE TECH IS WORKING AGAIN. IT DOES NOT SAY, AS DETERMINED BY WHO. SO AS IT IS WRITTEN, IF A PERSON WATCHING THE LIVE STREAM FROM HOME IS HAVING PERSONAL INTERNET ISSUES, BUT THEY TEXT A BOARD MEMBER OR NOTIFIES US IN ANY WAY THAT THEY ARE HAVING A TECH ISSUE, THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD CANNOT CONTINUE UNTIL PUBLIC ACCESS IS RESTRICTED IT DOES NOT SAY AS DETERMINED BY WHO. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ALSO FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, FAXES FROM THE MEETING CANNOT BE RESTORED IN A TIMELY MANNER, THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING SO THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD CAN CONTINUE. SO THAT IS ALSO UP FOR THE DISCUSSION. OTHERWISE, THE MEETING REALLY HAS TO STOP IF ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON IS HAVING A TECH ISSUE. >> THAT IS ONE I CAN SEE BEING ABUSED. WHOOPS! >> YEAH. >> I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THAT BUT I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME THAT IS SPELLED OUT. >> NOT TOO SECONDS? >> OOPS! >> UNDERSTOOD, UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. >> >> TRUSTEE MORA, ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE WORKS >> THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. >> DISCUSSED ABOUT THE -- YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT [01:10:06] BOARD MEMBERS ARE PROVIDING FOR CONFERENCING REQUESTS. YOU KNOW? IF EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT , I DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS TO CHANGE IT. I THINK A BOARD EMERGENCY JUST IS, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO CORRECT. >> I UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE GETTING REALLY SEMANTIC WITH LANGUAGE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK ON THAT ONE EFFECT IF I GET HIT BY A CAR , I PROBABLY WILL NOT -- >> OKAY. NOTED. OKAY. >> I THINK YOU WOULD STILL BE HERE. I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO VERY QUICKLY. FOR THE RECORD. 9321.1 , THIS IS A CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS AND REPORTS. THIS IS ACTUALLY A PROPOSED DELETION OF THE BYLAW CSEA APPEARED ALL OF THE KEY CONCEPTS WERE INCORPORATED INTO BOARD BY LET 9321 CLOSED SESSION. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THEY'RE TAKING LANGUAGE AND MOVING IT INTO ANOTHER POLICY. I DO WANT TO CALL OUT THAT IS ANOTHER ONE. SORRY, MY VOICE IS STARTING TO GO THERE. 9322. AGENDAS AND MEETING MATERIALS. TRUSTEE GRANT, I BELIEVE THIS IS WHEN HAD QUESTIONS ON IT? >> JUST A RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT. WE DID TAKE SOME ACTIONS EARLIER THIS YEAR. INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ITEMS A BOARD MEMBER COULD PLACE ON THE AGENDA. I THINK THAT'S IT JUST ME PUSHED DIRECTLY INTO BYLAW. SO THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE TO SEARCH. IT IS LIKE WE ARE DOING AND TRANSPARENCY AND WE ARE HIDING IT. I THINK ALSO THE SAME THING SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT. UNDERSTAND THAT IS PROBABLY A LARGER VISION FOR THE BOARD IN TERMS OF, HEY. THE BOARD PRESIDENT , SUPERINTENDENT, IT IS ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? IT IS NOT LIKE THREE LACES FOR HOW AGENDA IS LISTED . >> I THINK ON PAGE TWO? UNDER AGENDA OPERATION . THE YELLOW, THE HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE THERE TALKS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGENDA AND THE LANGUAGE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE BOARD APPROVED LANGUAGE AND THE GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK AND IS APPLICABLE WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT AGREEMET. YOU ARE PROPOSING ADDING THE LANGUAGE INTO THE POLICY? >> RIGHT. DIRECTLY TO THE POLICY. THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT TRUSTEE DOSICK AND I, WHEN WE MET INITIALLY, WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD. I AM BRINGING IT BACK. THREE SEPARATE PLACES. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME. THE GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK. JUST TO THE BYLAW. >> OKAY. >> AND THE COLD THAT WE ARE USING HERE >> >> I HEARD TRUSTEE MORA SAYING HE WOULD LOVE TO TAKE THE NEXT CRACK AT THE HANDBOOK. >> YEAH, I HEARD THAT TOO. >> POINT SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS , LIKE, SIX YEARS AGO AND SIX WEEKS AGO. FOUR SCORE AND SEVEN MONTHS AGO. IS ANYONE CONCERNED WITH DUPLICATING THIS LANGUAGE IN THE BYLAWS , JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY? AND FOR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING? >> I DO NOT HAVE A CONCERN. I JUST THINK THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS TO BECOME OUTDATED. SO THE BOARD DIRECTION IS THAT YOU REVISIT THE GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK EVERY JANUARY, RIGHT? SO SAY THERE IS NO LEGAL OR ANY UPDATES TO THIS BUT IT IS IF THE BOARD CHANGED LANGUAGE IN THE GOVERNANCE [01:15:02] HANDBOOK AFTER BRING THIS BACK FOR THAT IS FINE. THAT IS AN ADDED STEP BUT IT IS NOT GOOD OR BAD BUT JUST WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. >> THAT IS A TERTIARY CONCERN WHICH I UNDERSTAND. LIKE IT IS NOT LIKE WE ARE LOOKING AT DUPLICATING THE ENTIRE GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK IN THE BYLAWS. >> YEAH, I THINK JUST THE PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE BOARD ABILITY TO ADD TWO DISCUSSION ITEMS A YEAR AND HOW THAT GETS ADDED. IT IS THREE OR FOUR SENTENCES MAYBE? >> NOTE TO FELLOWS. IF WE MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THIS SECTION OF THE GOVERNANCE HANDBOOK, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THAT CHANGE ALSO SHOULD BE -- >> JUST UPDATE THE BYLAW. >> YEAH. >> SO WE IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD , THE GOVERNANCE , IT WOULD HAVE TO UPDATE THE POLICY? SO WITH THAT BE AN ACTION ITEM ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD? OR COULD IT BE SOMETHING LIKE -- >> I COULD GO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS BUT IT COULD BE A SUBSEQUENT, PROBABLY A CONSENT ITEM. WE WOULD ADJUSTED BUT THERE IS ALSO BEEN TIMES. FOR EXAMPLE, OUR VISION AND CORE VALUES AND ONE OF THE QUATTRO POLICIES. AND WITH THE BOARD APPROVED THE VISION, PART OF THE DIRECTION AS PART OF THAT ACTION WAS JUST UPDATE THE POLICY. THAT IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE DID NOT EVEN BRING THAT BACK FOR CONSENT . WE JUST UPDATED IT AND UPLOADED IT TO OUR WEBSITE. WE DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE. I HAVE SEEN IT DONE BOTH WAYS. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON TRUSTEE GRANT'S IDEA? IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH INCORPORATING IT? OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 9322? OKAY. THANK YOU, MICAH. >> THANK YOU. >> I BELIEVE THE LAST ONE FOR THE EVENING THAT I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO WAS 92 THREE , MEETING CONDUCT. SO THIS PARTICULAR POLICY OUTLINES HOW THE MEETING IS RUN. IT INCLUDES A LOT OF LANGUAGE AROUND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT IS STARTING ON PAGE TWO. THIS IS CSEA RECOMMENDATION. THERE IS NOT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION. BUT SINCE THIS POLICY IS UP, I WANTED TO KIND OF HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH TRUSTEES. THERE IS AND POSSIBLY SOME INTEREST ABOUT PUTTING SOMETHING IN POLICY FOR A CUT OFF FOR WHEN WE ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT IT IS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE DISTRICT TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT UP TO THE START OF THE ITEM THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED. I CAN TELL YOU, DISTRICT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. >> SOME DISTRICTS HAVE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE START OF OPEN SESSION. SOME HAVE THEM DO AT THE START OF ACTION ITEMS. AND, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO OPEN THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION TO SEE IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED AND POSSIBLY PUTTING A TIMELINE FOR WHEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT IN THE AGENDA NEED TO BE SUBMITTED . >> THAT IS NOT IN LANGUAGE CURRENTLY? >> NO, THAT IS NOT LANGUAGE CURRENTLY IN HERE. >> PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF THE AGENDA ONLY. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT , THEN WE ARE ALSO, I THINK, TALKING ABOUT , FOR THE ACTUAL AGENDA ITEM , RIGHT? >> YEAH. SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. GO AHEAD >> WE HAVE SEEN SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE , JUST AS WE THINK WE'RE GETTING TO THE END PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, AN INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS COME FORWARD TO NOT SAY ANYTHING NECESSARILY NEW, BUT TO REBUT THING THAT WAS SAID EITHER BY A TRUSTEE OR BY ANOTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. >> SO TWO YEARS AGO WE SWITCHED WHERE WE ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT UP UNTIL THE ITEM IS BEING CONSIDERED. SO FOR EXAMPLE , FOR ITEMS DONE IN THE AGENDA. IT IS ANNOUNCED AT THE BEGINNING OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. I HAVE SEVEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT I WILL HEAR FROM THESE SPEAKERS ONLY. I WILL CALL YOU UP ONE BY ONE. BUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS, FOR EXAMPLE, SAYING WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEM AS WELL AS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. UP UNTIL THE START OF ACTION ITEMS, 15 MINUTES INTO OPEN [01:20:01] SESSION. WHATEVER THAT THING IS. BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ATTEND THE MEETING NECESSARILY. AND THEN DURING THE LAST ACTION ITEM , ALTHOUGH MUCH OF PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS FOR ITEMS NOT IN THE AGENDA THEIR WAY TO THE DAIS. AND THE BOARD PRESIDENT AND STAFF HAVE TO QUICKLY SORT THROUGH THEM AND TRY TO MAKE SENSE OF THEM. SO MOST DISTRICTS HAVE SOME SORT OF CUT OFF. THAT IS THE DISCUSSION I WANTED TO HAVE. >> YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO SAY AT THE START OF ACTION ITEMS. I WOULD EITHER RECOMMEND THAT OR 15 MINUTES INTO OPEN SESSION. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, SOMETIMES OPEN SESSION CAN BE VERY LONG. OTHER TIMES IT IS VERY SHORT BUT IF YOU SAY AT THE START OF ACTION ITEMS, THAT IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THAT WOULD LIKELY BE MY RECOMMENDATION. >> >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT ALSO BUT IF YOU SAY UP UNTIL ACTION, THERE IS BEEN A LOT OF TIME INTO THE MEETING. YOU'RE GIVING THE PUBLIC PLENTY OF TIME AS THE COMMUNICATIONS ARE HAPPENING. SOME OF THOSE THINGS AT THE BEGINNING. IF YOU SAY 15 MINUTES, IT COULD BE STILL A LONG TIME UNTIL YOU GET TO ACTION. AND TO PUBLIC COMMENT . BUT IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO, NOW THAT WE START ACTION ITEMS, YOU KNOW, LAST CHANCE TO TURN IN YOUR CARD. IN THAT WAY, WE COULD GO THROUGH ACTION, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, AND BE READY TO GO. IT GIVES THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW? >> WORKING FROM, THEY WERE DOING AT THE START OF THE MEETING. SO I HAVE SEEN IT DIFFERENT WAYS. GOING UP UNTIL ACTION, I THINK THAT ALLOWS FOR A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR PEOPLE. >> I'M NOT OPPOSED UP UNTIL ACTION ITEM. >> OKAY. >> SO I IMAGINE THIS IS PROBABLY AN UNTRADITIONAL IDEA. BUT I AM ASSUMING THAT PRACTICE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME. WHERE WE REGULARLY ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS BY WAY OF CONTROL. THE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL THAT POINT. >> YES. WE -- A COUPLE YEARS AGO. PRIOR TO THAT, TO TRUSTEE DOSICK'S POINT , BUT WE WERE SOMETIMES LIKABLE. SOMETIMES SOMEONE WOULD BE HAVING A PUBLIC COMMENT ENTERING THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT, SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WOULD BASICALLY THINK, OH, I SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. AND THEY WOULD SUBMIT A PUBLIC COMMENT . JUST KEEP GOING AND GOING AND GOING. YOU KIND OF THOUGHT WE WERE NEARING THE END, PEOPLE WOULD SUBMIT MORE COMMENTS TO SOMETIMES REFUTE WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID. WE GOT PRETTY TIGHT ON THAT IN LATE 2021, EARLY 2022. >> OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE TIMELINE. MY TRADITIONAL IDEA IS THAT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A PRACTICE FOR AT LEAST A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME , COULD THIS BOARD DECIDE TO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S NOT CHANGES GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE, AT THE NEXT MEETING? AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING? TO KIND OF LET IT BE KNOWN ? IF IT IS AT THE JUNE MEETING. THAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME. YOU KNOW, I THINK PUTTING MYSELF INTO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC'S SHOES. YOU ARE USED TO SOMETHING FOR SO LONG AND IT IS NOT POSTED ANYWHERE ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT COULD AN ACTIVE THING TO PREEMPT THAT WAS SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A CHANGE THAT IS GOING TO BEGIN. EFFECTS OF THIS POLICY WERE TO BE APPROVED, NOT GOING TO AFFECT UNTIL AT LEAST JUNE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION TONIGHT. WORKING ON THE LANGUAGE OF NOT GO UNTIL APPROVAL AT THE MAY MEETING. AT THAT POINT, WHEN YOU GET TO THAT ITEM, IF A TRUSTEE WANTED TO CALL THAT OUT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD ANNOUNCE IT AND IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IN JUNE. WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE BACK, THEIR EXPERTS FROM THE POLICY. THIS WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC, CARPET THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE MAY MEETING TO ANNOUNCE A CHANGE, ASSUMING FROM THE BOARD, BEGINNING WITH THE JUNE MEETING. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> IT DOES. THANK YOU. >> ON A RELATED NOTE, IF WE ARE DONE WITH THIS, I HAVE A TRANSCENDENTAL QUESTION. THOSE OF YOU THAT OF BEEN AROUND THE LAST THREE YEARS, YOU COULD TELL ME IF THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE OR NOT. EVEN IN THE HANDFUL OF MEETINGS I HAVE BEEN TO. IT SEEMS LIKE WE GET A LARGE STACK OF PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS OF MULTIPLE STACKS OVER MULTIPLE PERIODS OF TIME. IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE FOLKS THAT SUBMIT THEM ARE NOT THERE. IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT PEOPLE ARE WRITING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S NAMES? >> SO WE DID ENHANCE OUR PROCESS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT [01:25:03] THE LAST MEETING. ULYSSE IT AT EVERY REGULAR BOARD MEETING MOVING FORWARD. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS FOR EASY IDENTIFICATION. THE TABLE HAS BEEN MOVED OUTSIDE TO REDUCE DISRUPTION AND CLEAN THAT TYPICALLY. THEY WILL BE SITTING AT THAT AND ACCEPTING THE CARDS PEOPLE ARE DONATING TYPE IT OKAY, I'M GETTING DONATED TIME FROM JOE. WHO IS JOE? IS HE HERE? YES, HE IS HERE, RIGHT? WE HAD BEEN TIGHTER ON THAT. >> THERE IS PRACTICE AND THEN THERE IS POLICY. SO I AM JUST WONDERING SINCE WE ARE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY WRITING A POLICY ABOUT THE TIMING. DO WE WANT TO, AGAIN, JUST ASKING AND THINKING OUT LOUD HERE AND RECEIVING FEEDBACK. SOMETHING ABOUT TIMING. THE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS . THE CARD . >> ONE THING TRUSTEES CAN CONSIDER IS , WE ALLOW A DONATION OF UP TO TWO MINUTES. IF THERE ARE MORE THAN 10 SPEAKERS, THEN IT CUTS OFF PEOPLE'S OPPORTUNITIES. IT COULD BE IF THERE ARE MORE THAN 10 SPEAKERS, THEN THERE IS NO DONATED TIME. SO MORE PEOPLE GET TO SPEAK INSTEAD OF FEWER PEOPLE WITH LONGER MINUTES. THAT IS A CONSIDERATION TOO. OTHERWISE, WHEN IT GETS TO THE 20 MINUTES, PEOPLE GET CUT OFF AND DID NOT GET ANY OTHER OPPORTUNITY WHERE OTHER PEOPLE GOT FOUR UNITS . >> I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE PROPOSAL. >> I'M SORRY? OKAY. YEAH. SO THIS IS ALL TIED TO NUMBER FIVE WHICH IS ON PAGE THREE WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT DONATION OF TIME. SO THERE IS MAYBE AN INTEREST WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NO ORIGINAL SPEAKER MAY BE ALLOWED TO HAVE OR THE TWO ADDITIONAL MINUTES OF DONATED TIME AND INDIVIDUAL DONATING THE TIME MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE AND MUST FIT THEIR CARD. WE CAN PLAY WITH THE LANGUAGE . >> BUT ALSO IN GENERAL. WHEN WE ARE DOING THE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN THE START OF THE ACTION ITEMS. A PERSON REQUESTING PUBLIC COMMENT MUST BE PRESENT TO MAKE THE REQUEST AND SHALL ALSO SUBMIT THAT REQUEST NO LATER THAN THE START OF. >> OKAY. >> YEAH, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT JUST ON THE DONATION BUT IT WAS GENERAL. TURNING IN THESE 20 -- AND ESPECIALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW LONG A MEETING. I MEAN, POOR SUE AT THE LAST MEETING. LITERALLY SHE WAS LOOKING AT STAX AND SORTING. I MEAN , EVEN IF THEY WERE, IT WAS STILL -- YEAH. >> OKAY. SO WE WILL WORK ON SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND GO GET THAT OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR REVIEW. SO DEFINITELY ADDING LANGUAGE IN GENERAL AND FOR DONATED TIME ABOUT PHYSICALLY BEING PRESENT TO SUBMIT YOUR CARD AND AT THE TIME OF PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THEN TO ROBIN'S POINT. NOT ACCEPTING DONATION OF TIME WITH CARDS OR SOME -- >> THE TIME YOU'RE SUBMITTING THE CARD . THE PERSON WHO IS DONATING ALSO HAS TO BE -- BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME. WHEN THEY CALLED NAMES THEY WERE NOT THERE. THEY WENT HOME. >> YEAH, THEY WENT HOME. YEAH, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY WORK ON THAT. >> ALL. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THE REVIEW. YES? OH, THE ONE WE ARE ON. YES. >> >> OKAY. GOT IT. YEAH. [01:30:15] AND JUST SO TRUSTEES NO, I BELIEVE YOU DO. THIS HAS BEEN A PRACTICE FOR THE BOARD SINCE LATE 2021. WE JUST HAVE NOT HAD IT IN A POLICY. THIS IS BEEN A PRACTICE BUT I'M HAPPY TO SEE THE CLARIFIED ACTUAL DISRUPTION AND ENTRY TO THAT COURSE. OKAY. THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT BUT I ONE QUESTION FROM A PROCEDURAL STEP REPAYMENT PLAN TO GO POLICY BY POLICY AND THE KIND OF PIVOTED TO GO SERIES BY SERIES IT IS A PLAN FOR THE NEXT STUDY SESSION ON JUNE 10TH, AND THEN A SUBSEQUENT ONE IN JULY, THIS TYPE OF PROCESS , DO YOU GUYS LIKE THIS? OKAY, OKAY. THAT IS HELPFUL. >> SHE MET >> LAUGHTER ] >> >> THINK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK. >> YOU TAKE CARE. >> YOU TOO. >> * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.