2020-10-26 PPS School Board Policy Committee Meeting

District	Portland Public Schools
Date	2020-10-26
Time	16:00:00
Venue	Virtual/Online
Meeting Type	committee
Directors Present	missing

Documents / Media

Transcripts

Event 1: PPS Board of Education Policy Committee Meeting 10/26/2020

00h 00m 00s
october 26th um and i'm going to i'm going to use my prerogative as chair to change the um agenda just a little bit uh we've had a request from beth cavanaugh to uh present testimony and she's not normally we do it at the end she can't um she won't be able to do that so she's asked if she could go first so why don't we start with that go ahead ben thank you so much for accommodating my schedule my name is beth kavanagh c-a-v-a and she her i'm here to express the importance of addressing pps's foundation fundraising policies on this committee specific specifically the local school foundations i know it's been listed as part of future work on policy committee agendas for quite some time now um with equity at the forefront it's an important time to address policies that were set up 20 years ago that are outdated and perpetuating inequities in our school system today there's a lot of support right now among parents teachers and community leaders to reform the foundation fundraising policies the change needs to come from the board individual parents and groups within schools can create support but fundraising will not become more equitable without changes to board policy the current foundation system is not transparent many parents teachers and even some principals don't understand the foundation system and don't know that some schools are able to buy extra teachers year after year i've been working with a group of pps community members to create an informational campaign about system-wide foundation fundraising in pps how it works how the funds are distributed and who has benefited the most a lot of people don't know what's going on outside of their own school so it's really difficult to see the systemic impact we want to help create a groundswell of support for reforming the fundraising policy with racial equity at the core we're glad to see it's going to be an active part of the work plan going forward thank you okay thank you um i think we had one other person signed up for um for testimony um mike grosen is mike on i see him there okay um mike are you prepared now or would you rather wait until the end i wanted to wait until the end rita thank you okay all right um is there anybody else who wanted to speak no let's just let's do okay all right um camera can you remind me to make sure we have time at the end to uh to have mike speak yeah okay okay so let's jump right in um we have uh so this is the first uh expanded policy committee meetings so we're going to try doing this for three hours and and hopefully try to make some real progress on a number of things um the first topic is on the work plan um so you should have received um over the weekend a revised version of the um the work plan spreadsheet um and it's very similar to what you saw a couple of weeks ago three weeks ago um it's been slightly revised and there's been some additional information including dates around when these various policies would come before the committee and target dates for first reading um and then probably just today um you may or may not have had a chance to look at it um we have a sort of calendar version sort of a gantt chart version of the chart um this is our attempt to make it a little easier to kind of wrap our individual and collective heads around how this is going to play out over the next few months um some of the things have not stand some of the
00h 05m 00s
policies that are listed um don't have dates attached um for a couple of reasons um either we don't have the policy proposal in hand and we don't really know when we're going to have it or our our discussions our committee discussions are dependent on some other work happening in another part of the organization um so we'll have to hold off find out when that's ready for us to uh consider um so we've got we've got a fair number of policies that um are on this list and um between the between these two documents um you can get a sense of how how onerous the work is going to be if if you look at the charts this chart um it gives the you know sort of best guess about how onerous the work is going to be on staff side and board side um and then if you if you take a look at the sort of ant shock version when did that get added is that just today just today okay i know it's i know it's late we were trying to we were trying to do something to make it easier everything that's on this chalk is also on the other chart so for some people this might be easier to visualize how the work will play out for others it may not you have both of them just and just clarify there were there were two doc there were two documents there was a draft work plan one and just a draft work plan which which one of those documents they're both the same they were duplicates okay so they're just the same document okay we've just seen yeah and for the timeline what is like calm the ones in green and one's in white what's the difference okay so um cara do you want to explain or do you want me to by the way um they just they they're the same and they got uploaded my internet was weird and they duplicated uploaded but they should be this they had all the same information okay um so so the question was on the on this the second document the gantt chart one so what what do the colors mean is that the question okay so the um so white means you know it's means nothing at this point um so the the calendaring for individual um individual policies um if it has already if it's already been introduced to the committee um you start with the green the light green in progress okay if it hasn't yet been introduced then the calendaring starts with a gray bust that's the the first time it's on the agenda and then it's followed by green and the blue box indicates the proposed um date for first reading okay so i guess i think i phrased my question wrong so each column has like dates on it and then at the top there's a green and a white what like what are the difference like what did that what does that mean this board meeting versus committee meetings so com is committee greg is regular board meeting okay okay this may look fairly complicated it's it's less complicated than a couple of things we tried um and i um i have no design since whatsoever so forgive me if this is not useful if it is useful thank cara if it's not useful blame me or just ignore it up to you
00h 10m 00s
so um so is there anything on here this gives you a sense of um what staff the the prioritization um based on staff capacity um staff assessment of the urgency uh plus board commentary at the last meeting so that kind of lays out the order in which we're hoping to tackle these different policies i do have an amendment to it i i wasn't able to reach out to uh jenny withicom who is going to be leading um the changes for the uh sex ed curriculu curriculum policy um she is asking that we push it out uh further in the spring she thinks she could have it ready in january so um we have it slated now for a first reading at uh the december 15th um board meeting um she's asking for additional time so that's a change we can make for the next committee meeting but i just wanted to alert you to that okay okay and just to remind people uh so this is the title nine policy right no no no sorry um i think it's sexuality that one yeah yes okay okay all right um so i i don't think we have a mandated deadline on that policy is that correct no okay so i think and that is um as i understand it we're anticipating that those changes are going to be relatively technical right correct okay so um so that seems like an easy fix we can come up with a new date and revive um my guess is this thing is going to be a work in progress so we're going to have to keep updating it as we as we make progress or not depending um it's kind of it's looking a bit at the layers of staff so you're looking you know we have to take it when we try to take it to the you know the owners of the policy to try to get an assessment of and then they try to realize their capacity it may move around a bit yeah um so this is this is a starting point um so without getting into a lot of detail about individual policies let's start off first with um are there any questions about kind of the the way we've laid out the sequencing of the work are there any any questions there i'm it looks to me like it's a pretty light workload i'm wondering if we can add five or six more policies to uh no i i appreciate the work that's been done to lay this out and i think we should all understand that the first casualty of war is the plan uh but it's good to have a plan to start from and something to aspire to so thanks for everybody who and again who tried to do this in several different ways to make it easier to understand yeah i i find it really helpful to have this policy to have or to have this draft plan to um help us kind of have some targets i i know you know from our public comment and emails we've been getting there's a lot of frustration about you know delays in the climate policy and and i know that there's a lot of anxiety from board members around certain policies so i think having we can't do everything all at once so having a clear plan of how we're going to tier this and and getting through um is very very helpful so thank you for those who worked on this yeah so um likewise i'm a very visual person so this is both documents are helpful um you want me to say my comments about um the contents or should i just say them now um why don't you try now okay we'll see what they are yeah i'm a very visual person
00h 15m 00s
person so i appreciate um uh the layout because it looks like a frame up so a couple uh just a question and i don't need an answer now but just the thinking about the osba because that's just a like line item and that could be a huge thing or that could be a little thing and so just having a better sense of like what what is that um like are there some things that we for sure you know if it's light is that just like rescissions or what what is it so what's your point in time i'd like a little bit more detail on that and then there were two issues that i raised last time that aren't worth um well we just had a very short at the very end the last meeting just a brief discussion about it but um i would like to have a discussion about the policy about school board elections given the passage of the state law and today in the new york times there was a front page piece about um sort of race and a georgia county school board election and sort of just how the policy of how um scored races are um you know what the policy is really impacts who who gets to participate um and i'm happy to send the article around i thought that it was a really interesting piece um but and like i said we have state law i think i think we should at least dive into it and uh look at it because every election cycle people say i can't run for the school board because it's a massive thing to both campaign and then serve so i'd like to add that and then the second piece and this is not a wholesale revision but i'd like to bring some proposed amendments to the property naming um policy i think since we adopted it three years ago there's been some issues raised um that i think um you know it was just it was a totally different time three years ago that i'd like to bring for consideration i don't think they would be either heavy workload for the staff or for the board um but people are free to make a determination of how heavy or light they are um when i bring them but i say i think they're just fine-tuning and then my last point would be um by our policy we allow that essentially just about anybody can bring forward a policy and so what is what is going to be our policy maybe we get this in the committee charter but how are we going to accommodate the other places where policy ids are going to come from because basically um what our policy says is anybody can you know a community member a staff member can advance a policy for the board's consideration and how what's the process that's is transparent and doesn't seem arbitrary that we either deliberate and change a policy or say like that's just not going to get in the queue so those are those are my topics but overall i think this is a great foundational piece of work so uh in regards to one of the um policies that director brim edwards brought up in terms of the naming seems like we should uh we have sort of had an understanding that we were having this uh particularly in school of renaming we're doing a pilot project actually too my understanding wilson and madison are in in root and that we were going to revisit both the process and perhaps the policy once those processes are completed so in terms of timing it would seem like after we've gone through that uh finish those processes would be a good time i know as a board member i'm expecting to do a debrief um you know both the decision one way or another in a debrief based on what uh recommendations are so uh i think i'd like like to see in terms of timing that would be uh at least after the new year before we could start to look at that from is that is that fair danny i see you shaking your head on that uh so just a point of clarification so uh we we paused on the administrative elective um so what we're doing right now is that we're engaged in a
00h 20m 00s
engagement process to review the administrative directive underneath the policy um and sort of have paused uh name changes for now so that we could sort of speak more closely to uh sort of the process um and so we are using the two case studies of madison and wilson and um we had our first meeting led by shanice clark last week of the group um it's a really strong student center design process and so i'm going to link the the details as the phases of it and the timeline is right just maybe a month or month a month or two behind what you just said uh director bailey so i'm going to link that uh sort of webpage to you and uh if you have any questions please feel free to connect with me or to you and i should clarify and i'm going to bring to the committee what i'm suggesting because it actually um i don't think goes to the the naming process it's just the policy in which that would be the most logical place or i could come up with a different policy number and it's not a major major change so um can i just underscore um for policies we need to make a distinction between the policy itself and the administrative directive right um so just um and i guess the other thing i would say if we're going to reopen the property naming policy then um i would probably want to offer some revisions as well um so um so let's uh let me make a suggestion um with with these uh policies that one um these additional policies that are not already listed um we have um i think we've got a pretty heavy schedule through february at this point um and um i think it makes sense to um i mean first of all these are the policies that we know about um we have come to learn over the last three years that um things pop up unexpectedly on a fairly regular basis um and when they pop up there tends to be a fair amount of urgency attached to them so we want to make sure that we have we build in a little bit of flexibility in order to respond to emergency situations that might develop um but let's think about um these additional policies in terms of um kind of later in the winter where i think we would hopefully we will be able to make some real progress on a lot of the work that's already been scheduled out and then we should have some additional capacity after that um so let's uh take those under advisement and then come back with a revised calendar um i'd like to get uh some things from the staff about um how much work um we can anticipate uh if you have if you have the julia if you have um already in your head of some of the revisions that you would like to offer if you can send that out so that we can sort of so staff can assess how much how much work it would take on their end and then if anybody else has suggestions about uh revisions for these other policies um do likewise does that sound okay that's unreasonable i can for sure send something off um to all the relevant parties here um i have a question based on um danny's uh comment about the timeline and because one of the things about the naming policy that wasn't clear is that um so we had like if you submit a petition that kind of gets the process going where you demonstrate um enough votes and we have so if i look at the calendar and then
00h 25m 00s
the calendar that danny sort of sketched out about the ad we have two schools that we've received petitions to have name changes madison and kellogg which are actively being built and i'm curious are are we disconnecting from the build timeline and um or is it is it how is it aligned with the current timeline because i haven't heard any discussion about catching up the petition on kellogg renaming with the current being brought something being brought to the board so we've approached them differently so madison and wilson madison's timeline we are working really hard to align with the construction timeline however there are some so some uh there there can be some tension around like wanting to do a really robust process well with the sort of like we're trying not to make the construction timeline be the driver um and sort of like build that muscle around like how do we do a really intentional good process without compromising compromising the engagement that we think will make it happen uh for the kellogg renaming uh we pause that um i think because kellogg doesn't have an attendance area yet because there's so much um uh to be discovered in the guiding coalition process and then the enrollment program balancing process uh it it felt premature to um to establish a committee uh to to be to do renaming and to use that as a as a pilot felt like the the commute the we don't know what what the community is yet there and so we wanted to really honor that intersecting process the other thing i would say is that um you know shanice's team is uh staffing all of these and uh in order to do an effective community engagement process for these adding another school at this time is um is untenable so um so kellogg is is not uh is is going to have to sort of wait to go through the process that comes out of some of the administrative directive uh changes yeah i think the kellogg process would be a great sort of school community building process once once we actually have kids in the building um to me that's that's the ideal and uh clearly chinese is getting too much sleep um so if not kellogg maybe a couple of other schools we could do sorry okay um so uh okay so i'm gonna try to keep us on schedule because we we've got a lot to cover today um so this is um are we okay with um this calendar as a current racist um with the understanding that it's going to be continually updated could i ask a quick question around that enrollment um sure policy is there a reason why we don't really have a date yet um is there a reason well probably yes and no um that that's going to be i think the next revision that needs to happen with it like we've gotta dedicate on some dates for that i can say staff who populated the dates did not know and feel like they had enough information to guess so that was this is our best marker but there were some some blanks as a point of process rita going forward shall we bring an updated version of this to each meeting you can just since it is it will be refined and be incorporating new information i want to make sure we're it's being used and updated in the way you want it to be so um i guess this is my let me let me throw out this suggestion and then people can weigh in um so i i think it's reasonable to have um the most updated timeline attached to every committee meeting agenda i i would prefer just for the sake of time i would prefer that it not the expanding agenda item for every meeting um but if if there are big changes that require some discussion then we can throw it on the agenda but otherwise it would be a kind of informational thing that would be available for every committee meeting
00h 30m 00s
it'll be in the board book and you can just take a look at it does that make sense one comment about the enrollment um i mean we are in the guiding coalition we're expecting to have phase one decided upon and implemented less than a year from now so yeah in my opinion i feel like that's pretty a pretty high priority when it'll be affecting most of southeast yep um we agree yes um we we just need to figure out the details of like what do we imagine that's going to look like what kind of workload what's the capacity how do we build it into everybody's schedule um i i have a new appreciation for three dimensional chips after trying to come up with this stuff um so anyway um and let me just make one last comment about this before we move on um embedded in this timeline these timelines um you know these lines for each of the policies is um a community engagement and we were trying to figure out a way to visualize that and it got really complicated so we're still working on that um but i just want to reassure everybody that the community engagement component has been built into this just do you know okay okay cool thank you um okay so on agenda is the preservation maintenance and disposition of district real property policy um so um we so you should have uh the redlined version red and blue lines version of um of this policy with some uh staff suggestions and an additional suggestions that i made for revision um have there been any changes since the last meeting i so the last meeting this was prepared but we didn't get to it right and i am trying to re if there were i can't remember rita if one of your changes came before or after that meeting but what was endeavored to take place in these edits was to capture the feedback we got from two meetings ago and feed that back in and and forever some you know anytime we can see opportunities for cleanup edits but the substantive edits here unless and i'm sorry i'm just not recalling the order um so i'm so the memory banks are kicking in now um so i think i did offer my edits my uh revisions prior to the last meeting so um so i think you you may have had an opportunity to see these um changes um but we did not get a chance to um to talk about them at the last meeting okay so let me um and i'm gonna interrupt myself again because i forgot to do something that i intended to do so i just want to acknowledge that we have an a new board member who has been added to this committee um ailee lowry so we now have four board members on this committee and the rationale for doing that is that we've got a few things going on um we're trying to be as efficient and effective as we can to get through all of these policies and perform due diligence and you know get these policies as right as we can get them um so we're um we're applying the concept of you know many hands make light work and hoping that that will actually play out that way so i just want to let you all know that it's now four of us plus the student representative okay so um back to the policy um if you've had a chance to look at these um changes uh there are a fair number of them um and before we go
00h 35m 00s
kind of one by one does anybody have any general comments about um the revision so i don't know you want us to just jump in if anybody has any kind of overall comment about the kind of the changes in totality if not we can go in go paragraph by paragraph yes i have like at least to start with like two sort of big i guess overarching so the new language that was added um in the first sentence that the property has been bequested to us by previous generations i would suggest that language be changed because actually just given we often have land acknowledgments before our meetings that really the land wasn't given us to to us by the people who who lived here at the time um so it just it's a sweeping statement that seems to um be in conflict with the land acknowledgements that we we make um i think i know what was trying to be expressed but i um i wouldn't be comfortable with that framing and i'd be interested to know um or be interested in input from the community about a better way to frame that about you know whose land and property is it so that's one thing and then the the concept and not getting into the individual engine but the concept that we wouldn't sell a property in consideration of replacing it with an equivalent or better property is problematic because it essentially says our current footprint is going to be the footprint for all time even if we had something better and i think um we are contemplating actually some things that will change our footprint and we should always be open to like better not to hold on to something just because we've always had it but if we could get better that i think we should um i don't think we should turn down better so i just think conceptually i have a issue with um with changing that because we're a dynamic you know the population changes we're a dynamic district and um again i know what the concept was but i think by saying that we would never take a better property for something that we've held on to is just i think not not what we want to commit to because it will certainly bind our hands with something property deals we're looking at um okay we can talk about this i i just want to point out it does not say never the new language does not say never well i don't know why we dropped though a better property so why don't we uh i appreciate the points you're bringing up when we when we go through a paragraph like a paragraph yeah i can give to the meat of it sorry i thought you were done talking my internet good i was gonna say i agree with director bram edwards i think the intention around that language about generations is trying to honor the past work of pps which i think is really important but i do also think you know we we have to be aware of of the generations that came before um pps and so i think a way to how to honor that sort of in my churchy world we'd say stewardship of um the past resources um so i i think editing that um um i'm trying to read it and come up with changed language does anyone have any suggestions there or director moore how do you feel about that initial sentence i mean like most things that we stand editing um um my let me make a suggestion um i think what we what we're talking about is going to
00h 40m 00s
require some some real care in wording so we might want to take it offline because i doubt that we can be as careful and deliberate and intentional and and uh eloquent um during a community meeting as we might be with a little more time so so let me just let me just ask um the general like the concept of that first paragraph with some wording changes as we've been talking about um are you okay with um with us collectively offline working on some revised language sort of maintaining the concept but working on the language okay all right so let's move to the second paragraph yeah i i would not want to strike with without replacing that property with an equivalent or better property again i think it ties the district's hands and it says that we wouldn't go for something better and it's like we're actively working at doing that in a number of different projects so was um was there a reason can uh i mean somebody struck or suggested striking that last clause there is there a motivation behind that that could be shared um i think that was probably me and um and that was i think just for some other um as originally written it i think it just said um i don't think it had uh the earlier restrictions so i would be okay with with replacing that terminal that language you mean leaving the current the current language i mean i would be okay with um uh sorry i just got a call without replacing our property with an equivalent or better property um okay i'm fine with that okay um there are no other changes on the first page but does anybody want to talk about any of the language and the rest of that page no okay with the page two oh um you weren't quick enough yeah um just there's uh and claus c [Music] um i'd suggest putting or instead of and where are you um page one paragraph c um paragraph c there is no paragraph be on page one i'm sorry did i oh dang sorry i i was already on page two i didn't realize that okay all right let's go to page two okay page two um so they stopped uh with the sale or long term lease of real property of the header okay online it the last sentence of the first page hangs down there so i'm assuming we'll it's the last half of this yeah yeah i've got my pencils so i'm ready for all the little copy editing
00h 45m 00s
okay okay so um so that paragraph has a number of edits yeah i would have the same question again um as we look at some of our current properties um i think that would be um overly restrictive in actually better positioning the district so you know again removing the strikeout of without replacing with an equivalent or better property um and i i don't know what would be a viable alternative because there's some properties we're just not going to want to keep properties that aren't currently a school or a school that's in a unhealthy environment sorry um i mean i get your points um my concern is that historically um property and land that are not currently that that were not being used you know at a certain point were um often declared unnecessary surplus and put up for sale and we have come to regret those actions so i wanna i i think it's important that we have in this policy some constraints on um on declaring property unwanted or unneeded so um could somebody uh viable alternative what what exactly does that mean or i know sometimes when i'm writing something i sort of come up with a phrase because there's there's a hanging participle um so i'm i'm not sure what that means and again in policy it's good to be as clear as possible um yeah i'm not sure what that means either and i no longer remember which of these were my edits and which were other people's edits so um i now have very little attachment to most of these edits at this point my rule of thumb is if i don't understand it it was one of your ideas rita but uh well i'm assuming if i don't understand that it was somebody else's one of you okay i'll take the plane but anyway um does anybody have or is that something we can peg to again do a little small group think through of how to state it more clearly yeah i mean i guess i thought the current language already already kind of articulates that it should be a last resort what i'm concerned about and look at looking at lots of property deals now with the school district over the years but like sometimes if you've got um you know environmental cleanup requirements at a property like you don't want to be the landlord of that property or long-term leave or you know is that the district's one of the districts um you know primary um functions that it wants to have or maintain like we're going to be a landlord all over the city even if we've decided we could get a better property um i think we we all agree on the goal that properties that we the district could potentially use in the future that we want to maintain that maximum flexibility and still should be the last resort but i i think this goes beyond that to keeping an attachment to the current portfolio
00h 50m 00s
properties as they exist even if they don't even actually have some of them have students in them well except they may not have students in them right now that doesn't mean they couldn't have students in them 20 years from now that's that's why we're in the building crunch we're in because 20 years ago properties were sold off that should not have been thank goodness uh trueilliger school um is still a terwilliger school um and just just a little history i think i'm thinking it was about 2002 i walked into a developer's office and saw a map of regular school with half the fields where i coached baseball and soccer half the fields were marked off as new housing development because it would be a good deal for the district to make some money by selling off the land um so this is not i mean this is serious stuff that the the district was considering at the time um it didn't happen thank goodness [Music] i was recently in a meeting earlier this year i was in a work meeting where lots of other agencies were busily making plans about the whitaker sites as as if it were you know up the grass and you know lots of creative ideas about what could be put on that site and how it could be you know um part of this mega complex thing so i mean i wanna i want this policy to be able to um provide sufficient uh guardrails around this edition of property so i i think we have a sense here of both we want guard rails and also want a little more clarity when we actually might want to say okay this this property is an environmental mess um yeah for i i think that's a potential decision point um so i would volunteer to help or if staff wants to do it on your own um just to help direction uh it's really helpful and so we can take a general direction and uh modify the language i think i understand where the ambiguity is and what the what the objective is so i think staff can take the first cut at that at least if that would be helpful beautiful thank you and just to be clear that we would be stating that without replacing with equivalent or better like we did on the first page to be consistent yeah yeah i hate to take a better deal okay so can we move on from that paragraph okay so under the section the board of education directs the following um any comments on any of these changes or anything else you want to comment on so on two um um and again i'm thinking in the context of some of the conversations that are occurring uh within the albino vision trust and potentially the center for black student success or excellence fingers crossed the bond pass is that we there may be properties that pbs has that actually may be better suited because of the location and the air quality outside for uses other than public uses and that we trade into a better property that has better air quality um so if if we insisted something stay in the public domain without some sort of flexibility of like pps is actually positioned better um we may not actually always be able to extract the value from a property if we were if that were the requirement so i
00h 55m 00s
if we've decided we're not going to use a property we've got something for a better value i'm just curious why we would have a requirement to remain in the public domain again so i'm going to say uh i think it's kind of the same thing here this is in the thou shalt this is uh thou shall make every effort to or this is the first option we want to look at if we if we do want to uh move a property so i guess i would um turn to staff again and say you know is this is this the right language that finesses that on the one hand in general this would be our first uh our first option would be to keep it uh try to find a a buyer in the public sector um but that not being a restriction in the sense that uh director brim edwards is worried about or are we just yeah i think we i think we can um tweak that language to strike the right balance understanding that that's a priority but also not tying hands so we can do that i mean i want to like make sure that our fiduciary responsibility that we weren't taking a lower price for a property or getting a lesser value property in exchange again there it may be that what makes a property not highly valuable to us say outdoor air quality might make it have lesser value for other public agencies and therefore you have a limited pool of um potential buyers so it's somehow like taking into account like our fiduciary responsibility also to utilize our assets to best support our students okay but i also want to make sure that we have sufficient guardrails so that the fiduciary responsibility has a very long-term horizon and i'll just cut to the chase i do not want to see another washington high school sale well that's actually that's actually an example of because it was sold to the city of portland that the value actually was pretty dramatically reduced well i don't think it should have been sold you know was like this is what we're gonna what you're gonna we're gonna pay you for this portion of the property and um so okay yeah i think we i think i don't want to argue about washington anymore we're going to move ahead i think staff understands what we're trying to do sorry haley no that's okay we're saying the same thing scott okay okay so um can we kick it back to liz and company okay okay um page three um starting with number three scale process there's something there's a word i think missing or something additional has been struck out because it says once is the board maybe the word is is supposed to be actually the first sentence after sale process the first few words yes so that that was that's a bad edit it's a little yoda well it's it's traditional for me to critique grammar in the middle of a board meeting um on policies that come through so i'd be disappointed if there wasn't something i'd
01h 00m 00s
oh no you don't get to do that when you're actually on the committee scott i think it's clear and i think it's it's solid section c uh i'm suggesting an or instead of the and um where are you uh paragraph c i hope i'm on the right page are you on presumption of market terms scott oh god am i on the wrong page again yes okay okay you just skipped us through all that we got to fight about like the paragraph and a and b before we can get to c scott oh i thought we had done the whole thing and everybody was happy no we were just on numbers okay market terms you got to learn this policy committee thing well i thought i was trying to expedite things so before you get to the other piece i just said statement i i do think that the presumption of market terms that first paragraph captures a little bit of the fiduciary relevance that i was referencing with uh like you have to sell it to a public agency so it's sort of like okay how do you reconcile those two um but that's the type of language that i would be thinking about when we had a if we had a property an alternative is a low market sale to a public entity so so just uh just to clarify um would we want to weigh in on either of those two being more important or leave it um and maybe we should be clear about the kind of ambiguity is the right word of saying you know is our first choice to go full market value or is our first choice to go public entity uh or do we want to be clear that these are two values that may be in conflict with each other and it depends on the circumstances so that might require if we want to do it that way and and we could i mean that might be a more elegant way to deal with this um we would probably want to add that to the criteria in this section okay i would just sorry so that might be i'm sorry say that again you like it how it is so so i'm i'm okay with this having having potentially you know in this case this is more important in that case that was more important i think it's be good to explicitly state that so that you know five years from now somebody reads the policy and they're going well what they mean here and just be explicit that at times one may be important than the other i think that's going to have to be up to the judgment of future rewards um yeah i agree because i think um so property transactions are kind of an art and the science and um i think there's going to be a lot of factors you want to consider but let's just take a for example the albino vision trust has indicated an interest in some of our properties they're not a public entity and say for example they came with a sort of full dollar you know top dollar offer um but we but you had a public entity that was going to just basically land bank that site like future development um you know i i don't know that we'd want to be um tied by like we already decided one was more valuable i think so this sort of mix of art and like i say it's an art and a science um and i think stating both and then you take this particular set of circumstances and look at them uh because i don't think any of us would want a public entity just to be like land banking our property and they get it at the lowest dollar value because
01h 05m 00s
they're a public entity right so and i'm and i agree with you what i'm saying is it might be useful to state that explicitly that one does not trump the other oh i thought you were saying no no no i was asking whether we wanted to specify that and it sounds like clearly no and so we it would be i think a potentially useful guide to the board in the future to say we explicitly are saying one doesn't trump the other depends on the circumstances and maybe that's being a little a little too i don't know anal or or whatever but um i don't think any objection yeah i think that would be useful direction in terms of how the policy would be read okay can we can we kick that back to liz you got enough yep got enough thank you okay thank you okay what about the rest of um this section now's the time for your paragraph c spot your ore is the offending end after the um the semicolon at the very end so i have something that might impact that and edit can we just which and are you talking about scott scott you're muted to be able to read my mind the one before lbgtq or okay all right sorry julia what yeah so after the um the sentence says express findings justifying less than market term shall be under exceptional circumstances consider the following factors and i would add or combination of factors because you know i think you could go through here and there be like oh well this factor impacts me my sense is from the committee previous discussions that it might be a combination of factors that would be most compelling to for us to you know consider it be exceptional circumstances okay that's that's an easy fix can i um there was something that um that occurred to me actually after after these changes were made um and that it was around um a uh the extraordinary economic or other circumstances beyond the control of all parties um and it was a suggestion that the below market rate be limited to the time associated with the to the period of extraordinary circumstances and um so liz i think we have actual language around that can you yes um let me pull it up right here it to the extent any below market terms under a lease are granted by pps because of extraordinary circumstances defined earlier the below market terms should be limited to the period of time when the impacts from the extraordinary circumstances exist after that market term shall be restored that sounds good so would that be at the end of a liz or where are you it would be um and i want to apologize because what we've just discovered is that there was a version that was preceded the one that was posted and it had very few changes in it but this was one of them um and it it would be at the end it would be after d and it defines it creates a defined term of extraordinary circumstances as defined by a and then repeats that as
01h 10m 00s
the standard that's in play for existing or not so it's to the extent the reason it's granted is because of a pandemic when the impacts of the pandemic are over the below market terms would end was the the the revision that was requested and that is the language uh the staff drafted so just to play devil's advocate not on that particular point but just of all these factors so unless we say that a has to be one of the factors we're not um we wouldn't actually have a pandemic or a recession is that right i think the there all the factors are these the the structure of the policies to say these are the things we should consider it isn't i think to say that all of these have to be present so for example i'm just playing this out so we all have the same understanding so for example we weren't in a pandemic or even if we were um we said okay because of b and d we're going to have a finding that we're going to offer market terms low market terms yeah so if in that particular case it would be irrelevant of whether you're in a pandemic or whether you're still in a pandemic or still in a recession right because you're not using that factor as correct i would i you know i wouldn't add it but just to be clear right right that's how yes i think that's right and then i think you know what what is not stated in here is is that a permanent uh relief from market rates is that defined by a certain period of time on a case-by-case basis for those that aren't defined by some external event is it the those that's not resolved in the current language okay were you offering you you know question for the board i was being maybe less direct maybe direct the board may want to put in some guard rails about how to make things time-bound or a return to market rent for another request for abatement or it may not i'm just saying that's an issue that isn't addressed if the board grants below market terms is there a default position in the policy that it's for a certain amount of time subject to reapplication for reduced terms or is it on a case-by-case basis by each request that the board would decide again not for category a but for the others i think that's an open question under the policy that hasn't been resolved and we can draft in any direction but i don't know what the direction is because you could always put that in the actual new terms right exactly you could just do it on a case-by-case basis and not put it in the policy just okay so um yeah so let's let's i think get explicit as a committee about the point that julie brought up are we clear that a is [Music] not necessary for an application for below market rent i think that's what that's what it says right and and i hadn't thought of it in that terms before so i'm kind of running it through my head right now um on the one hand i can see that uh maybe there's a startup maybe we have some property release and there's a startup and you know when you're starting up you're not often often you're not at full fiscal power and so we'd want to say okay for the first year or two years we'll give you a price cut but we expect viability after two years or something like that um is that something we want to entertain or do we want to or is that getting too much into i guess a development mode and really the standard that we want to have is market rate
01h 15m 00s
and only depart from that because there's a temporary condition i feel like part of you know what there are two places in here you know we talk about the res j at the um kind of end of that presumption of market terms and then in that famous paragraph or point c we talked about you know the community i don't think it hurts to reiterate that that yes you know our priority here is good stewardship that we want to use these funds to just serve our students but i do think especially when we're thinking about economics like racial and social justice needs to be pure economic decision making so i think there's there's something beyond dollars and cents um in the decisions we're making so if we can add that in as well here again reiterating that i would be in favor of that to just really continuously commit to that change in lens um that stewardship is bigger than dollars and cents and we we do have language about sort of cost benefit because every time we we do reduce rent it means we're giving up something um you know and i just think you know in my brain every 100 dollars as a teacher uh more or less um so just just i think that's a useful just metric to keep in mind we don't have money to give away but i i can i can go along with uh go along with that so keep keep the language basically as it is in terms of saying this is one one thing we would consider among others that would be a motivation director you look like you're thinking i am painful um i mean i don't think but i do think we need to have i i mean i take the point um and um i think to the extent we're talking about a change in lease terms based on something something extraordinary um once the extraordinary is over i think we should have the ability to reset back to the original um because because otherwise you know 10 years after 10 years from now um presumably the impact of the pandemic will god willing um be long tense over um oh you optimist something in place that provides an opportunity to to reset to revert back to the original term then you know the cut rate could last in perpetuity i think that was the clause that liz was talking about that was inadvertently locked out yeah right except for when we renegotiate any sort of change in the the least rates i mean you just add a term that of when it ends it's pretty stan it's pretty standard um okay but i mean just i think it's worth remembering that the reason we're we're going back into this policy is because we have found that the language is insufficiently clear so to the extent we can clarify now's the time how about how about this when um not exactly but if if below market terms are if there's a finding that below market terms are um warranted by the board that the term of the below market that there'll be also be a setting of you know expiration of the below market terms so that those two things the finding also requires that there be a final point in the future at which at which they end or are re-examined for extension
01h 20m 00s
okay so that would be that would be applicable but that would not be restricted to a that would just be a that would be under any circumstances if there's a below market then whatever agreement is reached there's got to be a a point at which um both sides have had to negotiate something liz does that make sense yeah i think you would want it does um and it it creates it resolves some ambiguity potentially i think so that's helpful i think what it you would want it to revert the default is that it reverts back to the market rate under the lease and then it would um and you wouldn't want to set a date that's after the expiration of the existing lease right so you would but we can we can work with that and then and then the parties are free to agree to future extensions at a below market rate from that point forward but you have a you have a self-executing end date to at least work from so okay okay take it back to you liz and come back so let me let me ask another question and again this is the non-emergency below market rate would we want to consider in perpetuity extending a below market rate due to the other factors any any thoughts or responses or just deep deep thinking for a moment keep thinking i think it's really hard to legislate all of this you know i think there there needs to be some guard rails but i think we also are going to have to trust our like our ability and future board's ability to make the decisions and i feel like what's laid out here gives us both some structure and some flexibility to do that um and i do think that you know res day lens is really important as we do this work um and you know like i think julia and rita have come up with with scenarios during this meeting of things that work well and things that didn't and how you know it's like we can pass all the rules we want to try to say what can and can't happen but you know you're gonna have to trust the judgment of future boards but i think i mean i mean i think what we're looking for with this policy is some guard rails to say when we consider requests for lower rent can we consider selling a property here are some factors we need to look at first um but i don't want us to i don't think i think the more we try to micromanage that or like put lots and lots of restrictions the less we're going to be able to be responsive and nimble to the situations in the future that's kind of where i'm i am on the policy um so again i'm i'm i'm not sure um but i was testing to see that if there was uh yeah we don't want to do that in perpetuity try saying that four times as fast as you can um if we if if that's okay again not that it's a it's an expectation or a regular occurrence but if we're okay with that happening then that's that's one thing or if we're not okay that's another thing or if we're just gonna say you know we'll we'll just leave that for now um again i'd rather that we'd be clear on which one of those three that we're landing on um rather than just leaving it amorphous and um amorphous without amorphous with comment i'm much much happier with an amorphous without comment i think i'm i'm i'm in the amorphous with comments um and my comment is it may need to remain amorphous that may be the best i can do right now no i'm i'm
01h 25m 00s
i'm just trying to push us to be as as clear as possible because this is policy both for the board and for the public and we i think we need to be clear on what we're communicating okay maybe i'll make another comment um i'm uncomfortable it's just in principle i'm uncomfortable with the district doing things that will have a perpetual impact based on you know this is what it looks like this week and hey gang let's do it forever when three years from now circumstances could be entirely different but we have no agency at that point how do we write policy for that because i feel like you know for example if we use this to decide to do a rent reduction for someone or to lease the building at a lower value and we say the life of the lease is 10 years then when the 10 years come up we renegotiate and of course the organization that we've leased to is gonna say well we've liked this deal we've had can't we keep it and we're then whatever that future board is is gonna have to then negotiate that and say you know we made this decision when there was a pandemic on and now there's not a pandemic and you all are in my financial position and so we're going to raise and then the the other entity isn't going to look like that of course and so it's going to have to be that negotiation so um i think we're talking about selling something that is you know once we sell something that's a done deal in a lot of ways we've let go of that property um so is that what you're thinking about director moore is like the least piece of things and how you know we don't want to have a low lease for forever um things in perpetuity yeah yeah well and and another one i mean we may need something for 10 years because right now we don't imagine for 10 years we're going to need that waiting we don't want to we don't want to get rid of it because you know i can imagine at some point and 10 years from now we've reached a point where yeah we need building back so you know we're taking it back um if you know the district needs to maintain i mean i'm sort of arguing julia's point the district needs to maintain enough flexibility to respond to prevailing circumstances which change all the time yeah and so i think some of it is i mean what my hope is is that this policy will help us be much more clear with our lessees and with our sales partners that you know we want to be in business we want to like we have buildings we want to support other entities however like our priority has to be the district and so just because we give you a good deal for a 10-year lease doesn't mean that that's going to continue and it's not it our priority is is this um so i think this this language and this updated policy will help be clear with our lassies that that um it is not for forever that that we're trying to be in good relationship but that may mean things will change as our needs change i also just want to point out that there is language in the policy that hasn't been it's not the subject of proposed revision about the objective in real estate transactions shall be to maintain flexibility in lease terms to allow for early termination to adjust to enrollment fluctuations or other district needs for the property so while that doesn't give you a hard and fast rule it does articulate that that is one of the objectives that the board has set in negotiating transactions just a point of reference i think danny i just got in like a half second before she was gonna say something too so go ahead danny the early bird catches the worm uh you know i as i sort of hear uh sort of like some of the sort of sticking points on this and i think about like the sort of application of the res j lens i wonder if it might be helpful to to think about some options for some uh some other voices to help inform your decision making um so i think you know uh sort of like to one of the points that was made earlier um and just sort of like the the sort of like question of like ownership of land and sort of interaction with like other um other sovereign nations uh one one one thing that i haven't heard folks talk a lot about is sort of like our relationship with uh with tribal entities um and i wonder if it would be a value for um for this committee to hear from maybe someone like laura john who's the tribal coordinator from the city of portland or the certainly metro has a tribal
01h 30m 00s
coordinator as well to hear about how other jurisdictions are sort of thinking about land disposition ownership in relationship to uh to the tribes um in oregon and sort of like what that looks like just for your consideration um and then i think um as as folks are contending with some of the questions about the overarching outcomes and sort of like what has you know sort of like what you know sort of like what rises to the level of sort of like criteria or selection or how you make these decisions i'm wondering if it's valuable to to sort of to talk with our communities and even some of our sister jurisdictions who are having a lot of these questions about how public how public entities contend with land leasing land sales uh so i you know i think about the city and transfer portland and some of the work that they've done um i certainly think about like metro and some of the work that they're doing um it might be helpful to hear from some of the partners that they've engaged that are our partners as well um potentially like the coalition of communities of color um so agencies who aren't necessarily potential beneficiaries of these leases currently that are that are also sort of informing this decision-making um might be able to give you a broader just another set of thought partners as you sort of contend with that um and think about the other perspectives that might be out there how would that happen well i think we could support you with that so i think you know one option is that we could sort of invite um some folks to come and talk to you at this committee meeting um or we could also you know sort of ask you know sort of ask folks to kind of come together uh to to do some partnership or you know some thought partnership with you on this if you'd like i think that'd be great um especially like that first paragraph too of this of that sort of the framing statement i think it would be useful to hear other perspectives and how other jurisdictions might approach um because we're probably in this in a similar position okay um so uh again let's talk about does anybody object to doing something like that no i think that's a really great suggestion okay so let's talk about how we can make it happen okay um absolutely okay so i'm looking at the clock rita just to be clear you're going to follow up with danny about that about getting some of those folks in okay perfect and we'll have to figure out what it would look like so um we we could do that full committee or we could deputize um two board members and a student rep to have conversations and bring that back and i'm i'm concerned about our our work our time at our board at our official meetings um i'll leave it up to our board chair to decide whether that's a good idea or not our committee chair uh that's not a job i want rita gets to do that time of deciding who to be no um okay so it's 5 36 um i have i have on my unlike sheets that we're supposed to be finished with this topic at 5 40. um but i'm going to push it a little bit so um let's move to the last page um because i think these might be easy i think um uh does anybody have any issues with the uh i think most of these were staff recommendations based on how this policy has played out in recent years so we talked about this last meeting but the word more stringently is to me i don't understand what that means
01h 35m 00s
or or how it would be applied i mean i know what it means i just i think it could lead to a lot of ambiguity or different interpretations and it's just the long the long-term consequences are impacts are much greater with the sale than a temporary change in market terms i i think from a drafting standpoint to best support the committee would help be helpful to know is the concept something that you want and then we can get to the language or is the concept not do you want there to be a higher bar for a sale than for a short-term lease yes okay so that's helpful um okay so we can work on the line you'll come back okay just how about the next paragraph maybe one of the things to do is like we actually spent the first two pages talking about what we're gonna do in sales so maybe there's just some reference of you know also these factors will be considered in a sale just putting it all together versus putting it after the factors does that make sense liz i think so i think so okay how about the next paragraph did we i'm not sure what that's about it just says that um we will come we will abide by terms of grants that's what it says so it's it's not it's giving it's acknowledging that there may be some decisions that are out of our control by grant terms that's all is there is there a case where that's relevant i don't think i have sufficient history on the real estate portfolio to say that i think we we did take this from the osba policy um but i don't know if dan or kirsten or dana have any uh or clear if there's an example of that listen whether it's in your policy or not you have to abide by the grant terms so i mean it it's also somewhat self-executing it's a contract you enter into and [Music] that's a good reminder yeah i'm fine with it whether it applies now or not it's good to have in there and i think it would be it would be nice to be able to policy that comes from osba we did we're using it so we consulted with it when we were well yeah we integrate the osba process into any other policy we touch slow going but we're getting there i do think that and and um kirsten and i my screen doesn't show dan i don't know if dan is here but the the very last changes about the rights of way and the 30 to 90 days they may be i think i can speak to them somewhat but they are the ones who have to really administer that uh and if you want any additional background they have come to our meetings and we're finally to that kirsten things for the first hour and a half sorry uh okay yeah we do we do have to deal with those and it's just the timing of having to then go through the whole war process if we can and you know they're always consent agenda and there doesn't seem to be issues with them typically because they're required by the city or whomever utilities okay anything else just one over sorry all right that one overarching thing that i've noticed is that um at least in the southeast guiding coalition what future means like future enrollment we're only looking at 2024 uh or till 2024 which is four years um which i really don't think is long enough so i'm hoping that like in this policy somewhere it states like future is not just four years ten years it's longer long term than just that um does it say four years somewhere
01h 40m 00s
yeah yeah i i think you know i mean in the initial paragraph it says future generations i think originally it's a decade um and we'll be working on that paragraph but yes the um and if you look on page one under objectives and real property transactions um we haven't changed at all but it's not about the district's short intermediate and long-term educational and operational needs considering long-term population and enrollment projections so does that sound is that good enough i just know that future and long term haven't always been operationalized in policies so what long term means to one person could be vastly different to what long term means to someone else so the the term that's thrown around is that you know property is a hundred year horizon and and i i don't think it would be bad to put that in you know kind of in in quotes not not to be taken literally but to um i think building on on your idea jackson is to say hey when we mean long term we mean long term um okay so yeah that's a good that's a really good point can you throw some of that in here absolutely okay okay so i'm gonna stop us um it's 5 44. um we went through this whole policy and did a first run through so kudos looking at the schedule that we kind of sort of adopted um we're hoping to have this real estate policy ready for our first reading on december 1st which means there's only one intervening meeting between now and then so if we're going to do any consultations um in the next meeting three weeks from now so um if we're if we're in order for us to meet that december first deadline um we've got to do some we've got to hustle to do some of that work um so my i guess my request is let's try that deadline um if we can you know oh well um but i would i would like to be as close to meeting that deadline as we can because there is some urgency involved here um so can i offer um maybe a question unprocessed can i sorry i want to see like the top of your head on my screen for some reason oh sorry that's okay um same with me with a leo there it goes um so one of the things maybe because i heard a lot of agreement and like okay staff will get that like through the agreement maybe the way to expedite them is to have adapts to the importers and just doing the work but that way you get all of that instead of you know in one big swoop um and then when you then when we come back to the committee you're down to just where there wasn't where there wasn't consensus yes um it still only leaves us one meeting and it it it could be this could be eminently doable or not and i think we have the engagement piece too right so the engagement is informing some of that language as well so the timing of that but but yes we can we will move i do think julia's characterization of the feedback we received will enable us to turn a draft pretty quickly and solicit individual feedback um but i i think the next steps on the
01h 45m 00s
engagement is really where the rubber meets the road right yeah okay okay so um let's move on um so that was pretty good um i think we deserve some passing ahead for that um and given that we are going to be in this meeting for three hours um people have impressed upon me upon me the need to have breaks on occasion this seems like a reasonable time to have a break so is five minutes enough okay five minutes that's five five fifty three i'm probably going to be seven because i gotta feed my dog sorry okay it hurt and go out takes at least seven minutes okay get back as soon as you can okay so um so let's try for five minutes and we will reconvene okay thank you is the complaint policy um so this was another one where i think um we got these we got the revisions we got the redline version i think for the last meeting never got to us so um hopefully you've had a chance to actually look through them through their revisions um so we're sort of looking at it overall um any overarching um reactions to the uh to those suggested revisions um i i will say that i think most of i think most of these revisions um came from staff based on experience over the last two years two plus years so anyway any overarching commentary and rita if i this is stephanie if i can just add some context so we went through the bulk of these edits at the september 14th meeting you had some feedback for us and so i would say the justice of the context that the the next set of um edits was pretty minor um but and i don't want to take that away from um both lydia and mary worked on those but uh you have gone through most of the the general gist of the policy okay um i will admit uh you know i have covered brain so it takes me a while for the memory bank to re-re-enter the scene but okay um and this is my camp any other comments i mean okay are we gonna i'm sorry i'm just interested there's a question overall about the discussion because we really didn't have i mean we went through the changes but are we going to have that a broader discussion or is it that just the opening question sorry i'm not sure i understand the question you mean are we going to go through all of like paragraph by paragraph is that what you're asking yeah i'm just asking what the process is because so last last time you asked for overarching comments and then we did a deeper dive and i'm just we've got yeah that's that's what we're gonna do here too okay is it is it possible just to i may have got the version from the last meeting but is it possible to for staff to highlight any non-material changes that were made between the last meeting and this one non-material well no material well material okay um i'm gonna ask i'm not sure i'm understanding julia material okay let's just go through and we'll we'll figure out which one's
01h 50m 00s
on the fly i i get your point julia um that i think when we look at a paragraph we can see um was it a material change or just a rephrasing kind of a clarification okay there are both there were both question because you don't have the you have a prior version to what's in board books and you want to link what your prior version was to board books correct so just just understand like so when i'm looking at the one on board books that the um changes all appear to be in butterscotch i guess um with my eyes some of them are in red and so like are the red ones the new ones or which because like comparative it's just i i made some pretty extensive notes on my on the last version it's a totally fair question i want to i want to increase the degree of difficulty which is i'm looking at the online version versus at least when i printed it out in the butterscotch like paragraph d13 is it doesn't it's showing all it's not showing language that's broken so i'm not sure what happened in the translation there should be something when you read it you can tell that the edits are kind of a mess so we it may make sense i i i think that again i don't want to rely on my memory for which document which changes proceeded which which meeting i think since that was talked about in september um there have been mostly language changes we're trying at each iteration to simplify the language to make this process as accessible and understandable i think there's still more work to do but we're trying to take out phd level words and describe things in more straightforward language i think the the substantive areas um really start in step on the step three side in section b with the exchanging of information and a discussion about how information will be shared with the complaints before they come in um there were i think there was not the referral to a reader of this policy to other places to file complaints that are not formal complaints but might arise from other concerns is mostly mostly just populated with contact information um the d1 clarified that what's what supports may be available but that legal advice was not part of the thing that was uh included and then in d12 and 13 i think 12 have not been changed much just from my recall about exhaustion like not repeat filing on the same event um is clarified and 13 has definitely had some edits about um what the board of role members the role of board members are um or is during the pendency and i don't i think those are that's how i would walk you through substances no i don't know stephanie lydia theory yeah if i recall this wasn't this was the google doc that was cursed um so we would make changes to them they would you know the changes wouldn't appear or as you see they're they're they're all showing up so it's not how i apologize for that if it would help if i showed a document i think that if you show that it's long it well i don't i don't know if it has all of the internal can you suppress those i don't know so can you talk about the same one which document i think we can walk through it i i think we can walk through roseanne i think it's mostly paragraph 13 where the edits are really tortured and the rest i think let's walk through conceptually again and you mean post it in board book right now the one that's posted in four books that's what everyone has i think that's when we think okay let's get to that paragraph 13 um it looks like there are multiple versions that are not distinguishable you're getting a lot of background noise um when we get to paragraph 13 i'm happy to read
01h 55m 00s
the version that has the actual conform the edits that were made since they're not showing up here yeah okay all right so let's let's just go through um i used julia you muted my question was so i'm just getting ready to print out the current version so does that mean liz is going to change or it's going to be we're going to discuss something different than what was in board books yes because i think board books makes no sense because it has it it doesn't have language stricken that was stricken so the sentences actually are a little nonsensical the gist is there but the words don't support it and so what am i pulling for that one paragraph though right as best i have identified as i'm looking through this i don't know roseanne and if there's if mary if you can take a quick look while we're walking through this to see if there are other pieces but i think that's the big that's the big one so i'm working firm i'm pulling up what's posted in boardwalk or not you don't need to poke that everyone has that so you don't need to put anything okay so in the interest of time let's just plow through and if we come across things that don't make sense then liz will explain what it's supposed to be how's that live oh excellent no pressure okay um paragraph one so i had a question about that um the definition of the pps community so we've added the word pps it used to just say broader what what does that mean that was conforming the um policy application to that which is in division 22. um that's a choice that's a policy choice recommended but uh but it it is a conforming to division 22 edit but it it the board is free you can't make it narrower than division 22 but you can make a policy decision to open up the formal complaint process outside of um the pps community to to anybody if you want yes i guess what i was wondering like the the distinction i was thinking about is to me that means okay to start with within the geographic boundaries of pps to start with like by adding pps that would that that's one definition of the pps community and then another definition would be you actually have to be like a stakeholder a direct stakeholder like a parent or a student or a staff member and to me it's not clear what we mean and to me this it's um an important question right now because i think about like today we got another um sort of revisiting of an earlier complaint that was not necessarily a stakeholder but a neighbor of a pps building or when we're asking the broader i can resolve this because the division 22 is about speaks about residing inside okay so if you and you can't make it narrower than that but you can make it broader and we can make it more clear also in the language but it's really it's a it's a policy decision that the committee needs to make so it's a geographic designation geographic yes okay so we may have parents who uh one of the custodial parents lives outside of pps so we might want to play a parent or guardian right so you're a parent or guardian oh you're already included in the list of folks who can it's students can wherever you live can bring a complaint in the under the policy parents or guardians wherever you live or if you're neither of those but you live in the boundaries and bring a complaint under this policy i think we should just make clear that it's a geographic definition because otherwise it's 20 of the people versus 100 okay we can absolutely do that
02h 00m 00s
julia did you have other comments on paragraph one yeah but i have to get back into my space not in paragraph one sorry paragraph two i think we were just trying to clean up the language to make it as clear and explicit and also you know narrow down words i feel like you guys have done a good job of that of of trying to clarify and streamline um and i there's lots of parts coming up that i really appreciate um and some of just a little tweaking of um the language like in paragraph two i think is just um it makes the cute complaint process a little more accessible for people so i really appreciate the way that that language has been so thoughtfully looked at in this paragraph okay number three kind of the same goal was just to clean it up a little bit um so some of the language is uh you've turned into a passive tense and my english teachers always frowned on that so we we also i mean that's one principle and i agree with you scott i like active voice i think we can further um refine that we were also trying to take out unnecessary phrases like the board intends because the policy is a reflection of the board's intent right so those were some of the this was probably a quickie edit if that's looking at yeah just pps shall settle campaign as quickly as possible agree agree okay number three [Music] so maybe this is a a d question but it's also down below at transparency and accessibility but i don't know how people there was a point in time when we had the ombudsman at every meeting [Music] and when you went on in fact this the whole complaint policy we do came out of uh the parents coalition complaint and the ode requiring it to be more transparent but i don't how would people how is this i was accessible defined because i i mean i agree with the wording but i'm just wondering like what that means because we stay in our current policy and it doesn't seem super accessible i think that comes below when we talk about how you make you know uh complaints so that's lowered down in the policy but if that's not clear uh we can we can look at that piece the the wording of must um just gives me the same kind of heartburn where are you so again i hope i'm on the right version are we in a different version than the board book yes no okay so i'm in um [Music] the next to last paragraph the complaint process must be accessible too um the next to last paragraph on the first page i got it mary i got it okay oh i see it sorry yeah no no worries and you would change it to what scott what's the issue with us we'll just make it active voice we can take that stephanie maybe you can speak to accessibility and what's in policy versus what's in implementation and a.d and how how you're thinking about
02h 05m 00s
that well i would say the ad is fairly simplified and reports back to the policy refers back to the policy because the policy is so prescriptive um which is fine um accessible i think i don't have a well i think let me let me jump in then because i think what accessible is intended to mean and maybe we need to change the language but that it's understandable that it's when you when you pull it up on the website that you say this is this is how it works this is what my expectations should be that this is how this is delivered when i file this this is the response i will get that it isn't it's that when you read it you can take it in understand what it means and have reasonable expectations about what you'll get in return and that that's not um that that's just some i think that's the as i read accessible here um it also has some uh it should also have some ada components to it if you need special supports then we want to help provide those as well but i think we address that in a different i think accessible in this context means um in the broader sense just one more comment about accessibility i mean looking at this policy it's i mean one of our longer policies and if we're talking about accessibility i think trying to get all the information inside of this policy is really hard so i'm wondering is there somewhere where we can like synthesize what is the most important that you need to know if you want to make a complaint somewhere on the website there yeah there is so if if because i have googled complaint policy on our website and it takes you straight to the what we now created as a community resource and it provides information on how to uh to resolve uh issues that parents have at school and so it gives them a breakdown at the end we have the formal complaint policy which also has a hyperlink to uh to the formal complaint form um or if not um my email address the complaint coordinator's email address and the reason we drafted it that way is we we really try to steer people to um just reminding them that they have a school resource you know a teacher or an administrator um that administrators want to do that work and that they have supervisors and sort of works up the chain to the deputy superintendent um dr cuellar but there's also this process too just because we found when we did have the ombudsman people didn't know that um and we've heard a strong poll from the osp team please send us people back to us we want to work with we want to work with parents and families we don't and students we don't we'd rather not see it go through the formal complaint policy or process excuse me so actually i just went on to the pps website and typed in how to file a complaint and it does give you a whole host of choices and the first choice is i think the um the site where or the page that lydia recommended and it is really good about like walking through the whole thing it almost i mean this is more in the how and to be accessible is like instead of having people like typing in maybe there's something on the main page that says do you have an issue you need to have resolved and then they can see the whole thing because the time you get to like i gotta file a complaint how do i do that um i think they're going to be in a different place so to be accessible it seems like you need to be able to see it see it somewhere on the home page um about conf it's under conflict resolution or but it you'd have to actually go and google how to file a complaint to find it so we're thinking about something on the home page like a click and there and there is at the very bottom i don't think it's probably what you are thinking of julia i know um there there are debates about how to use up um geography on a home page and what to focus on so but we can look at making that bigger and more accessible in that to help meet that definition i think on our homepage we should have a big banner with guadalupe's picture that said have a complaint um great discussion but wrong venue um we're we're off of policy
02h 10m 00s
um so uh the the wording around must i i don't know if this is the right wording but it's more our goal or our expectation we we can't have a policy and process and declare that it is accessible um because we'll have people who tell us it isn't um so i think we need to say it's something along the lines of our goal or our standard that we want to be held to is that we will have a process that's accessible along all sorts of definitions of what accessible is okay can i um can can can we take this back to liz and company and um work on some language around that okay all right um roman number one annual reports transparency and accessibility um and i think correct me if i'm wrong but i think most of quite quite quite a few changes in this paragraph and i think so i think the first is that when we first wrote this complaint policy there was no administrative directive so we took out all of that language and then the rest of it is changes for clarity is that right okay so any issues with the first paragraph a uh yeah it's to me it has a couple of sentences that are disconnected from each other to me it's not coherent here we go one i feel like it would read more smoothly this is totally petty which is our business um i feel like it would read more smoothly if the second sentence had as well instead of end on the last end so the district shall provide training for building administration and designated district staff on how to handle for complaints formal complaints under the policy as well as the administrative directive because it feels like we're providing training for building an administrative provider well maybe if we move that the district shall provide training on how to handle formal complaints under both this policy and the administrative directory i think it's too many clauses that get a little clunky just a little i think about here and as well would help make things a little better um and then i think that because complaints can be an important indicator there are three separate thoughts there's scott you are correct they all go you know how we um how we do this sort of reporting and kind of what supports we're going to give to um our administrators okay so you can separate out training into a separate sub paragraph if that would feel better i think yes i i'm looking for a topic sentence and i was having trouble coming up with one we'll put training in its own paragraph and try to make it feel more coherent i think we can do that substance is great and that's the important thing at this point i think i think the first sentence the information regarding the complaint process shall be accessible and user-friendly i think that fits under b um because that's the full explanation of the complaint procedure that's covered there so that may that sentence may go better under b um and we may want to move b to a um and then talk about training and then he i would separate out c and have c be the reporting um that would be my recommendation what would you do with c what was the last thing on c so i would have a b it's on the website and it's user-friendly b would be we're going to train people and provide them with the policy and c would be the superintendent's going to report to the board as an indicator of institutional health i like it thank you okay um
02h 15m 00s
types of complaints um this is compliant with the with the administrative rules so not a lot of room for messing around with this language although we do need to add the new rule on um all students belong is added to division 22 now yeah are there any additional like bullet points do we do we need to add anything in the actual list based on the new legislation i think so i think we'll we'll add all students belong um i actually think we wouldn't necessarily i think we should but the way it's drafted it doesn't it includes it by reference the rule even if it's not specific you're right i think we should add it i think we should add it i mean we could add um because it's a bias complaint process right we could add to g bias and discrimination and education is is this similar to a listing of grievances for a festivus yes sorry that's where my mind goes to oh i think that list is significantly longer than this one yeah that that are monty python there's some there's there's some real material here but thank uh yeah looks good okay um roman numeral two timelines um a anything in a so is is that a may be filed or must be filed yeah where's some of that pizza i'm sorry i have headphones on you can still hear it sorry no don't worry okay number one sorry number one of what sorry um roman numeral two a one within two years after the alleged violation you okay yeah okay two uh are we gonna have a debate over small d versus capital d no that is settled law sorry okay b good okay see fine okay roman numeral three filing a complaint a step one paragraph one so i know this is the current language but um actually that's not been our practice that it must be filed with the district's complaint coordinator because i believe that board members and staff get formal complaints and we pass it on to the complaint coordinator um but if the requirement is that i'm going to say it's not our current practice nor does it seem super accessible unless lydia's picture wants to be on the front page of the home page no thank you i agree it's not accurate um we do forward them to lydia maybe if we say something like all formal complaints will be um redirected to me or rerouted to me or they may be filed with you or directed forward it to me yeah they should be something like the written complaint should be filed or forwarded to the district complaint coordinator i would say i would change where we're editing and i would edit i would say filed with her um by letter email or the written complaint form by either the complainant or if the complaint if the email or letter was received by staff or a board member that they can be so it's the it's the person who's filing with lydia is different it's either the complainant or it's a board member or staff that works yeah and we already addressed the board member piece in f several pages down so we may want to
02h 20m 00s
consolidate that into a single yeah just to be uh clear um because we have a time limit involved does the clock start ticking when lydia receives it yes yes okay i i think we should clarify that you're giving me a puzzle can i ask one question about the before we you know if it's being forwarded by staff or other board members um because i'm imagining there there may be a lot of complaints made to say an administrator or something like that where they believe it's been handled um and so what i don't want us is to be caught with not handling a complaint because someone believed that the complaint was to them and i don't want us to also automatically forward every complaint received by every uh teacher or staff member uh to lydia because we will become overwhelmed so um but i'd like us to think about that language because it right now it would suggest that everything moves yes and that's not i don't know that we we may want that that's up to you but um i think you're right mary i think that it would be good if we maybe part of you know we're going to be training our administrators and staff how to handle complaints and maybe part of the board training would be when the board gets the complaints that we we say to the complainant our formal complaint process is to send this to lydia here is her email um do you want this you want and ask me yeah this is what you have the the the person who receives the complaint knowing how to handle it and that this is the policy that it needs to be filed with lydia and that our role as board members is actually to help people know how to navigate the system rather than navigating it for them so that our job could say i've received your complaint to start the formal complaint process this needs to be filed with your complaint manager would you like to take that step and then we can help the person do that rather than automatically just passing it on to lydia so i would want to know more about how different communities feel about that because um i don't i mean sometimes people i mean people are maybe complaining about something in the central office and not feel comfortable sending it sending it there um or that may be additional barriers say there's somebody on the board that um they know because of for whatever reason and that's like how they feel comfortable approaching the system or the man i mean i think i look at like from a from a point of privilege i think like i would be completely comfortable if somebody sent me a note back like hey you have to forward this to the official complaint coordinator but i don't think all people would feel that way um but i think julia and ask we can forward it to the official complaint coordinator i think once we've checked in that that's what the person wants i think it's about opening the loop to say i've received your email my next step as a board member is to forward this on to the complaint manager i just want to make sure that's you know that you're comfortable with that or it's not it's not um forcing them to have to do it but it's sort of helping them realize the process is complaints start when they get filed with lydia so i'm going to file this complaint for you that you've sent to me or but having them understand that that's the process it also looking at the web page or we're looking at conflict resolution it's starting lower and i mean if that what what we'd like people to do is resolve things without going through a complaint process and so the whole idea of creating that page was to to encourage um a more immediate resolution rather than having to you know go through this process yeah like i'd rather much rather say have you talked to your school principal than like would you like me to file this with lydia because i mean the volume of males i get if i ask everybody if this is like would you like to be in the formal complaint process people like why not this is the thing so well i'm thinking about the emails we get julia that say this is a formal complaint and i'm reporting it to the board and then our response back to those folks needs to be formal complaints start with the complaint you know and if someone like if someone's just annoyed i've got an email about a principal or a teacher that someone's upset with then i respond and say have you talked to the teacher have you talked to the principal have you talked to the you know um area director kind of thing um but i'm talking i'm thinking about those times when someone has said the word i want to file a formal
02h 25m 00s
complaint but then we say back to them this is how the formal complaint starts you know could you forward this to lydia or would you like me to forward this to lydia to start the filing process so not with everything that crosses our desk those kind of level of this is a bigger issue and and like it or not you're going to have to deal with central office and this process needs to be pretty clearly spelled out because that's that's how it rolls and i think it's important to have like a clear starting point for the the beginning of a formal complaint i would be very nervous if um board members were expected to stop you know be the one to file the initial complaint that would make me very nervous i think that it blurs the line between somebody sending an email versus somebody wanting to start a formal deal um because it's a deal and it's it has to be a deal um so i would want to have some very clear line of delineation when a formal complaint process is started i guess i'm i'm trying to think of an instance in which somebody said this is a formal complaint that it didn't just go automatically to lydia i think those are pretty easy because i think those i think that just go right to lineage i think it's somebody sending an email letter and we were getting hundreds of emails i guess i didn't get to the third page where they said i don't want to give an instance somebody said this is a fact i think we need to teach the language as it is the formal complaint starts when it's filed with lydia and then it's up to us as a district to train our people how to help i think folks navigate that system but i think um i would like to leave the language as is and then the part about school board members is later on um [Music] like we want the big hero because i was trying to respond to what i thought your concern was but i'm hearing your concern differently now and i i feel like dropping the language makes it cleaner actually i thought years resolved resolved it all because it's sort of like um to me when i read this is like i'm i don't know where else it is in here but it seems like you know it's when it rises lydia and it can either arrive at lydia through the person sending it to lydia or it being forwarded on if you make if the if there's a clear understanding my concern about doing it this way is that we will violate uh we will bring on unwittingly um some ode complaints because we either it sat in somebody's inbox or they didn't recognize when somebody said i want to make a complaint and they said well why don't you go check you know talk to the teacher that what they meant was formal and what they got was a redirection so that's my concern about that piece of it yeah i think we need to leave the language as is because of that and and you know we do want to be supportive of folks in the complaint process but there is also i mean a responsibility with the complaint process to um we want to support people and being able to get it to lydia but we also want to make sure people can get it to lydia and so i would hate for us to add in language that then like mary says means that stuff is dropped okay so have we figured out what we want to do keep the language change the language i've lost track where are we keep the language okay so that's that's parent that's step one paragraph one i think we just spent a few minutes discussing something and then not changing it at all that's a thing good job okay um okay paragraph two okay paragraph three what's the two for what i mean there's a two at the end of
02h 30m 00s
three that's just an editing piece it's not part of the actual language i think it was numbering the the the um when people were making corrections or changes i think it was numbering those because at the top um at number one at the end of email it has number one and this one has number two it's really weird how it's making it our thing right just just ignore it yeah okay all right um i want to do a time check we're at 6 39 um we end in 20 minutes we still have one person who wants to get testimony so we're going to have to stop this discussion at 6 55 so we've got 15 minutes left um let's power on through i don't do this i i doubt it but let's give it a shot okay uh roman numeral four filing an appeal step two first first paragraph i think that's all good okay there's one that's fine are we okay can i get two yep that's fine okay step uh b step three appeal to the pts school board first paragraph looks good just one comment about timeline um i'm just wondering if we could include something about extraneous circumstances where maybe like in the previous one it was seven days after a decision that seems pretty tight what if there's a family emergency or something happens within that time period where the focus of the complaintant isn't on the complaint at the time and doesn't they don't have time to spend to send that appeal to them so there is language here where we work with the complainant if they need additional time um we work that out together okay i just wanted to check yeah yeah it's 24 hours before the hearing enough time well we've had cases where like people have complaints have walked in through their appeal where they got brand new information so yeah okay so 24 hours is at least an improvement over that but yeah i like that i like the idea of having additional information ahead of time to help us make our decisions what about non-written information which seems to be more on the staff side what does that mean um like the superintendent of staff providing you know just verbal information about the case where they appeal this is talking about communication between the staff and complaining so but i'm viewing it's like the information is relevant to the anything intended to be presented to the board or shared with the board should be anything any background information all the materials from the complaint and any background information should be given to the board 24 hours in advance we actually do it with the packet thursday before i thought this section was in case something comes up sometimes lydia will hear back from the complainant on monday or tuesday and we'll get new information like about attendance that's what i thought this was trying to get at i i think this was perhaps intended
02h 35m 00s
that but also intended to make sure that there's parody of information so that complainants don't uh right have access to i would hesitate to say all because i think you're going to create foot faults you don't that no one intends to create by the time a staff members ask something at a board meeting and then in the context of it presents it something that wasn't shared before but was known i just i think i think we want to get as close as we can and no one's trying to play hide the ball or surprise anybody i don't think that's the the intent um but i also wouldn't phrases like all things can come up in the context of that live discussion that may not have been shared in advance if the policy says all then that may create additional challenges right since this isn't a judicial like a legal proceeding um which may be the same case of what may happen on the complainant side as well right right and this the 24-hour notice would allow the complaint to say whoa this is new information that i got from the district i want to have more time to deal with this and that would allow allow us to say okay we can negotiate another week or for you to process this and respond right i mean i i think that's the ideal because ideally it never goes to a vote i mean that would be you'd be hopeful like scott to your point that if say some relevant piece of information came up that staff thought oh well maybe this would be an approach to resolving a problem and they got the information as part of the pre-24 hour information like you know here's the compromise and i think you know look back at the esl or the wilson security issue where that where we ultimately i think got to a resolution without actually having to develop a complaint that's that's the i mean that's the ideal versus people being surprised on either on either front either staff or the complainant with information or like hey um we're gonna lose this vote or we're gonna win this vote so we're either gonna like you know staff um adjusting or the complaint and adjusting so here's something i as i'm thinking about this playing out so let's let's say there was relevant information that it was human error or someone was sick or let's take out nefarious intent but there was additional information in writing that would be helpful to present and there is it's not delivered to the complainant in 24 hours notice the complainant has a right to ask for and i think we would give an extension of the hearing date in order to respond what if the complainant says no it's late and i didn't get it and i want my hearing on this day what's the consequence well none because they had uh you know their option the remedy is to move it out not that it can't be discussed right i think that i just want to flesh out i see i mean likewise to staff i mean i'll just use the dog park it's like if you go to richmond there's signs ten feet apart to say two different things one like no dogs and the other like something that's like well maybe dogs um it's like oh do we know that and also like it's all graffitied over like maybe we don't want to be like having to vote on something when there's a simpler solution that could be addressed without sort of forcing the complaint um i think if we give the complaint the option to delay or not and they say don't delay then rim but i think your point liz is that doesn't mean what came up at the last minute is inadmissible this is not right okay just want to clarify make sure it's not recorded do we need to put that in the policy i'm going to add a sentence about what happens that the complainant is entitled to an extension of time if they would like the problem is we can't unilaterally declare it because the ode timelines are right required so if the complainant doesn't it doesn't want that then we have to have a basis to record within the mandated timelines by od okay and is that only the if we don't provide if the complainant does it doesn't receive the information in 24 hours
02h 40m 00s
within that 24-hour time frame they ask for an extension if they provi if they say i've got new information and i did make the 24-hour timeline again we can't unilaterally extend the hearing date it has to be it's really the complainant's call we can agree to it but we can't we are we are bound by it so anything that triggers has to be something that complains it agrees to that we would agree to also right and i'm just saying either scenario when we don't when we violate the 24-hour uh information or when they do they provide if they say oh i have something that i i think i want to add and i'll bring it to you tomorrow you say then we'll we offer you an extension or i i i think we i think this is more to to for the protection of the complainant um and if if it i mean i think there's always room for a conversation and hopefully we have lines of communication open where we can say that this is really new information it would be great to we would like the board would like more time will you consent to moving the hearing out two weeks or whatever it is so we can we think that this is really important i mean we can have that but if they say no then that's a good compromise yeah and ode has no has no 24-hour clock so we're just saying what do we do versus our policy okay okay so are you going to add a sentence indicating okay yeah fudge factor okay um one and two we're still in step three appeal to the ptf school board so one and two okay yep no changes okay and then the last paragraph under that that's just technical yeah we need to fix the ad because it is inaccurate it says that the board is the final decision on complaints and it actually should say with the exception of it should say that division 22 issues can be appealed to ode okay that's in the a b yeah it's it's currently like contrary to law is what's in the a.d okay all right but um do we say that in this policy no no but i'm just saying we need to be clarified there's a final it's yes i agree okay all right okay i'm going to stop us it's 6 51 we're not gonna we're not going to make progress beyond this um so can everybody make note where we stopped so next time we look at this we're going to start with c other types of complaints um the maker request can be can we get whatever cleaned up version of the end of it that is not quite cleaned up um great before absolutely yes are we talking about d13 yes yeah we will get you the appropriate edits that read like sentences and are intended to read yeah i think it's a conversion between google to word they don't they don't play well together um okay so question um so we are we're gonna come back to this three weeks from now um we have asked liz and company to make some additional changes to the stuff we've already talked about um so we have we can do this two different ways one we can start next time we can start with c and then continue on to the ends and then see how far we get um or so i would too how about if we just get the revised version and it'd be like look at it before the meeting and flag if there's if you see anything that's inconsistent with the discussion and if not we just go all the way through it yeah okay but i would okay but if if there are questions um about the earlier section any revisions made based on the today's discussion um i would suggest that we hold off on discussing those
02h 45m 00s
uh until we finish going through doing its first reading through all the rest of it okay and then if we have time we can circle back and do the the beginning part okay and i'm going to write myself a note so i remember what we just agreed to anyway okay um all right so um let's move to uh mike you have testimony you want to offer yeah okay ready yeah so first i want to thank you for making the climate crisis response policy a high priority um i'm really excited that we're going to start in early december to talk about it and i really appreciate that you have a timeline around it taking it to the end of february and i'll talk about that in a minute but i think that's really doable based on the work that's gone into it and then i just wanted to note a couple of things the draft um i think is it's a draft policy but it's unique in a couple of ways one is there's um been a large amount of work that's gone into it already and it's been a very collaborative effort we've worked extensively with pps management staff and frontline staff and i want to thank aaron pressberg and monica fleischer from the sustainability team who have been integral in coordinating this work for us with the other departments that will be affected by this but we've also worked with a lot of outside parties environmental groups community members local governments students teachers parents we've gotten a lot of feedback already and made a lot of updates i think we're on the 18th version of the draft and then the second point is that the draft policy takes a unique approach to advising the development of the administrative directive and we want to put together or the draft policy identifies the formulation of a community-led climate crisis response committee that will make recommendations to meet policy goals so the aed obviously is a process that the district manages itself but we're interested in having an advisory committee that helps splash out the goals that would go into the aed and then the last thing i wanted to say is we just started working with the statewide coalition that's intent on developing climate action plans for school districts and we're reviewing climate action plans from throughout the country and there's already one that exists in corvallis that was just completed in 2019 and that's everything i had to say and just thank you again okay thank you thanks mike okay um so we um we have three minutes left um i i want to check in um i think we made some actual progress today so are we are we good with the three-hour meeting okay um because i just don't see how we can get through all of this work without more time we just can't um can can i ask that we have like an established like at a set time just a 10 minute break because for people with different things like it's right at dinner time um this is a courtesy that we have it's pre-established like from 5 50 to 6 o'clock or whatever so that everybody knows there's a 10-minute piece okay um we'll take it at this at the halfway point and we'll just stop wherever we are for 10 minutes okay my daughter so roseanne can we build that into the schedule into the agenda okay um okay um any other comments no good i thought we got a lot done um thank you every all the staff for your work it's apparent that you've put a lot into these policies yeah it's really yeah yeah you're killing it there there's there's a lot that goes on in the background that people probably don't know um is it and and i i want to especially thank carrick because she worked over the weekend um to do the uh the grant boxing so thank you
02h 50m 00s
take the rest of the week off okay okay so um anything else for the good of the order okay i'm going to give you 30 seconds back um thank you and we'll be in touch about the community about the consultation stuff okay all right thank you

Sources

PPS Board of Education, BoardBook Public View, https://meetings.boardbook.org/Public/Organization/915 (accessed: 2023-01-25T21:27:49.720701Z)
PPS Communications, "Board of Education" (YouTube playlist), https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8CC942A46270A16E (accessed: 2023-10-10T04:10:04.879786Z)
PPS Communications, "PPS Board of Education Meetings" (YouTube playlist), https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbZtlBHJZmkdC_tt72iEiQXsgBxAQRwtM (accessed: 2023-10-14T01:02:33.351363Z)
PPS Board of Education, "PPS Board of Education - Committee Meetings" (YouTube playlist), https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLk0IYRijyKDVmokTZiuGv_HR3Qv7kkmJU (accessed: 2023-10-14T00:59:52.903034Z)

2020-10-26 PPS School Board Policy Committee Meeting

Documents / Media

Notices/Agendas

Materials

Minutes

Transcripts

Event 1: PPS Board of Education Policy Committee Meeting 10/26/2020

Sources