Coraggio Consulting Fairfax County School Board Work Session, Tuesday, January 30, 2024 Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 Place: Fairfax County School Board, Virginia Length: 5h 17m (video) Official meeting video (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBngiK3GG1o Official School Board page (FCPS): https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/leadership/school-board Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting. Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-11-02. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [00:04:03] Thank you. The January 30th, 2024 school board work session is called to order. Mr. Dunn has submitted a written request to attend this meeting virtually due to a personal conflict. All those in favor of approving Mr. Dunn's request. We're unanimous for those present. Need us to read the names? No, but Mr. Dunn is not currently on with us just yet. Okay, thank you. Well, thank you everybody for joining us. I really appreciated both of these topics of [00:04:46] culmination of many, many months of work. The first one we are starting with today is our advisory committee manual and the corresponding draft policy and governance manual changes that go with this manual. So I wanted to give you a little bit of background. [00:05:01] I apologize. I sent you a short memo very late last night that has this information, but I'm just going to go over it as well for the public as well as for you all. And so I know there was four of us on the board when this work was done, but some of you are new to this. So, in response to a forum topic that I think was the first one that we did, Ms. Mera and I submitted a forum topic in, I believe, February 2020. [00:05:22] I don't know exactly when the forum was held. The board directed the PEC Committee to create an advisory committee manual to provide more guidance to advisory committees to help ensure consistency and clarity while staying within the guidelines of the law for those that are legally required. [00:05:40] It spanned almost three years of work over several PEC committees. It started, I believe, when I was PEC chair, and then it was taken on and mostly finished when Mr. Frisch was PEC chair. So today, would your indulgence colleagues ask questions? Since we don't have staff, this is an internal document worked on by a committee. [00:05:59] As questions come, I'll answer them, but I may also ask Mr. Frisch outside of his time to address any questions, since this work was really done by both of us. If you all are okay with that, I'm going to use that today. So the work spanned three years. The idea was several of us who started on the board four years ago had served on advisory committees. [00:06:19] I was on ACSD for eight years. And in talking to other advisory committee members, there came some to light that more guidance could be helpful to our advisory committees, more guidance on the report, more guidance on the role of staff, more guidance on what the board expects from them. [00:06:35] lot of us got getting asked what does the board expect from us what are we doing how do we function what is the role of the staff what is the role of the chair so that was the sort of the thought behind this forum topic and the thought behind generating this as you can see 17 page operating manual for our advisory committees the draft manual corresponding governance documents i'm just going to call them the draft advisory committee materials just to make it straightforward it was finalized by pec in the fall of 2022 one of the reasons it took that long is it was mostly finished under mr frisch's term as pec chair but we were then in the process of doing [00:07:12] the strategic plans we wanted to make sure that this operating manual would be in alignment with the strategic plan so we brought it back to pec in the fall of 22 to do that alignment and the pec committee voted to move it forward to the board for full review discussion and a potential vote on this manual just to clarify the timeline that we thought about in terms of when this would be operational would be starting the next school year so it would give us time to whatever comments come in today to vote and then to make sure that our committee members and chairs were aware of the new manual were helped supported in implementing it but the implementation the idea would be that it [00:07:51] would be starting with the next school year and the next term of the committees just a little background for those who may be new to the board our advisory committees are reconstituted every year the as many of you know because you've gone through this process board members appoint members to the advisory committees and some of them also have additional community members who appoint a person which the board has final approval over to these committees generally the vote on the advisory committee appointments happens during our organizational time in July along along with the board voting on the charge for that committee for that [00:08:27] year that all happens at the same time in July and then the new Constitution of the committee starts in August or September usually September so the idea would be that this would go into place in time for that new Constitution of the committee in September the desired outcomes today for the advisory committee is to really just provide some feedback to the committee on this and determine next steps in terms of ideally if there's revisions that need to be made send it back to back for revisions and then circulated to the board there probably isn't time for another work session until close to the end of this year and after you know three years of working on this hopefully it's it's in [00:09:05] pretty good shape but today is really to get board feedback and comments if needed it can go back to the pet committee to incorporate the board comments circulate a final draft and then bring to a board vote when it's ready so we're going to be utilizing the next steps document today for you to provide any feedback that you want and use the same next steps process any that get seven will be feedback that will incorporate into the advisory committee manual as needed. [00:09:31] I just want to flag, there's a couple things that have come up since this was finalized. There's some change from the state around virtual participation for our advisory committees and a resolution that needs to be passed. We've done that for this year, however, we should embed that virtual participation resolution and process into this manual, and we also need to explicitly state that advisory committees cannot meet in closed session. [00:09:54] are two things that have come up since PEC and that can be incorporated into this document. So that's a bit of the background on this. If you would like, I'll walk a little bit through some of the changes -- not the changes -- some of the things that we embedded into this manual to give some background, and then we can turn it to board questions and comments. [00:10:14] So one of the things -- and I would -- as I do this, I'd welcome both Ms. Marin as one of the makers of the forum and Mr. Frisch, who worked on it as PEC chair. If I'm missing anything into my walking through, please raise your hand to fill in any extra gaps. But one of the things that we really did in this is really try to clarify the roles and responsibilities of our advisor committees and try to get a consistent process by which committee members were appointed and the committee would do its work. [00:10:43] We found some committees had very robust processes, subcommittees, ad hoc committees, and a robust process to get into the report. committees leaned more heavily on the staff liaisons. We wanted to clarify the role of the staff liaison in supporting the committee, the role of the committee executive board or chair or vice chair, whatever that leadership looked like and what their role was. And one of the most important things to us was a clear follow-up process. One of the things we really heard from our committees is they would produce a report at the end of the year and it was unclear what the follow-up to that report was. So we really embedded into this what the follow-up would be we also wanted to get some consistency around what the annual reports would [00:11:22] look like so we really spent a lot of time describing what the purpose of the report the process the structure the format and the response we wanted to clarify what would the communications be with the school board what is the role the school board liaison to the committee because as you know each school board member is a liaison to a committee and how that school board liaison can help support the committee. The drafting of the charge. We also wanted to put in about public comments. Some of our committees were allowing public comment from the public and others didn't have that process. We wanted to put that in there as well as speakers. We wanted to clarify what agenda topics and how that agenda topic should relate to either the charge of the committee or [00:12:01] the annual report and the annual charge or just the purpose of the committee and then clarify whether roberts rules were going to be put into place and so it was really around giving clarity we wanted to also get some clarity around membership one of the questions that came up is how do new members get put on these committees that a new community members get put on these committees staff members etc and there was really we felt a need for clarifying how membership would happen and what the term length would be in the different types of membership so i will pause there i can walk through each section if you all would like me to so i'm happy to do that before we get started or we can turn straight to questions [00:12:41] which i can walk through each section a little bit yeah please mr fish um so some of this is going to seem like normal right because part of what we found when we were talking about this was that a lot of what we did was based on tradition that wasn't necessarily written down anywhere it was just kind of inertia of the organization moving forward so some of that is memorialized in this document or augmented in this document the other thing i'd note you'll see in board docs is that that there are two other documents in addition to the handbook. [00:13:12] One is the governance manual and one is the policy. There's three versions of each of those. One is a redlined version, one is a clean version of that redline, so what it would look like if it was approved, and then one is what does it currently look like with no changes, so that you have that as well. [00:13:28] The governance manual version takes out, basically the edits that you see in the governance manual are those that would be required to sync up with the handbook and the same thing with the policy the edits you see in the policy are what would be required to sync up with the handbook and you'll notice that it refers out to the handbook so that we're not finding ourselves sorry the manual um the governance policy and the and the uh the governance manual and the policy now refer out quite frequently to the operating manual because it would be a pain in the rear end to any time a [00:14:06] change is made you'd have to make changes in all three if you didn't do that so that's just my little two cents about some of this stuff no I appreciate that because a lot of that work was done when when Carl was chair of the pet committee so I appreciate you lifting that up and then the other piece I wanted to I meant to mention is a bit of the process and how we got here so after it was sent to peck after the forum topic was approved by the board I was picture at the time that sort of did a lot of the initial work on the manual and then Carl finished it and created the other documents to support to implement the embedding of this in our governance manual and in the policy. [00:14:40] But one of the things that we did is we gathered input from board members, we gathered input from committee chairs at the time, committee members, to see how does your committee function, what would you like to see, what suggestions do you have for changes, you know, what would you like to see the board direction. And so that input was gathered as part of the PEC process in developing this manual in the first place. [00:15:00] So some of this, as Carl said, is based on what was already being done but hadn't been memorialize anywhere some of this based on feedback from the committee members and chairs themselves some of this based on feedback from the board and then just conversations through the peck committee as we went through this um and one thing we wanted to clarify is where if if we wanted to who is sort of on the what body of the board is overseeing the functioning of these committees right like and we and we said the public engagement committee is the one that's going to do this because advisory committees are a way to engage with our public because they're all members of the community and stakeholders that are appointed on there. [00:15:39] One big change I wanted to point out to you is that we did change it from, they used to be called citizen advisory committees, and we changed it to community advisory committees. So just throughout the document, that change should have been made, but if you see citizen anywhere, it's a place to fix it. I think we got all of them, but it was important to us to make it community, not citizen, so it's open to anyone in the community that either is appointed to one of the organizations or by a board member so we kind of clarify that the public engagement committee is the one that sort of oversees potential changes to this process to [00:16:14] the operating manual of course no change happens until the board votes but if there's some concerns questions raised by people it goes the public engagement committee it also we also put in an iterative review process so every five years there will be a formal review of this manual so that way if things or things have come up that haven't been flagged or raised to the level of pec review it will automatically be reviewed and as part of that formal review pec may conduct a survey for feedback request membership attendance data analysis of charges and other information so every five years pec will do a formal review of this manual and of course it can be reviewed before [00:16:49] then and again any change has to be approved by the majority of the school board so we kind of talk a little bit we heard some feedback from committee members that they didn't even know why they were appointed to the committee or what the purpose was i will tell you when i got appointed to the acsd in 2011 i got a phone call from region four saying do you want to be on this committee i didn't know what it was i had no idea i understood about students with disabilities but beyond that i really didn't understand any of the functioning of it so we wanted to provide some of that feedback and background so people could really hit the ground running when they started their work one of the questions really comes up is how does the annual charge get developed for each committee [00:17:27] the school board is supposed to give the annual charge to the committee but there really was no clear clarity on how that was developed sometimes it was staff and the committee chair did it sometimes it was staff sometimes so we tried to clarify how was this charge developed that's the first thing um it wasn't really clear what the term length was it should be a one-year term for each committee member of course they can be reappointed there's a couple committees you'll see fpac and fleecac that are slightly different which is called out on here but generally it should be one year term they can be reappointed if you know either by the committee or the um by the school board member or the um organization so that we flash that on there we talked about the school [00:18:05] board liaison staff the selection process for how um committee representatives to be selected for school board members there's no directive that school members have to do any of this stuff this is just sort of fleshing out what we thought would be best practices on how school board members to pick their committee members but there's they're all should the only shall is submit the names and contacts to be appointed but everything else is just suggestions for what the board members need to do there was a lot of robust conversation in peck as to what we could bind board members or not and the decision was really to just lay out best practices for board members because each [00:18:39] person operates differently um same with the one of the the questions that's come up over the years is how do we make sure that the committees are manageable size to get work done while leaving room for community stakeholder voices on the committees that have community stakeholders so we we came up with a process there was really no process for how we add community stakeholders how we you know determine who's on there so we came up for the process of each year that the committees would recommend to the board we capped the committees at a certain number so that way way they would be they wouldn't get so large as to be unwieldy and not be able to get the work done [00:19:19] and the cap was tied to sort of what most of the committees already had so we didn't there was I think couple that might have lost a member or two but in general was tied to what most of the committees had but we created a process by which yearly the committees themselves would recommend to the board different stakeholder organizations community members to have on the board that the board would approve because we felt like they best knew what work they were doing and the needs their committee we talked a little bit about the school board liaisons the staff liaisons the student representative and how many some questions have come from a student rep of how many representatives did they get to appoint so we addressed that in here really the roles and duties [00:19:56] of the committee members because we'd heard from committee members they didn't really know what they were supposed to do and not do we we heard that chairs were doing different things we really wanted to help our committees and the idea behind all of this is helping our committees do what we want them to do because we really value both the work that they come and their time they're all volunteers we wanted this to be as effective as possible so people who are spending their time and sharing their expertise felt like something was happening with their work and there there's clear clarity on how to do their work and how to have what they are recommending be heard and followed up on and that was one of the biggest reasons behind it so i'm not going to kind of [00:20:35] go through all of the nitty-gritty details I know this has been sent to you all before so I will stop here and just entertain questions from colleagues as we go through I know the clerks are having next stops document as well that has been sent out so as you go through some next steps and changes you want to please put that on there but we're also be taking notes on your suggestions so I'll let Sandy start talking calling the first people okay I didn't catch who put there's up first but um dr anderson sorry really quick are we doing three minutes for each round [00:21:08] two minute go backs thank you thank you this work was a long time coming i still remember the forum topic one of the very very early ones um so thank you for this so i'm just going to dive in let me turn this down one of the things that i know we talked about quite a bit particularly in the beginning was about the functionality of the committees there was conversation with the previous board that some of the committees kind of um they're beyond their life and we also had [00:21:47] the discussion of perhaps introducing new committees did peck talk about this at all because one of the committees that we had discussed for years is a possible uh technology advisory committee i don't see that anywhere here do we consider that to be kind of a next step yeah i think what what we ended up doing is with this manual took so much work that we wanted to sort of focus on getting the processes for the committee set in place and the next step would be the conversations about whether we want to add any new committees to that so this was really focused on getting the manual and the corresponding documents in place but that would be something I'd go back to peck [00:22:22] next on deciding do we want to add new committees um you know there's been some conversations about board committees as well so that's a conversation we can have but no that wasn't work that peck did it was the next step to follow up after this was done. Okay on page four of the manual one of the things that I noticed which is a little bit new so I'd love some context item under types B1B school board members may appoint students as their representatives. I don't know if we've had a lot [00:22:54] of conversation about that but I'd love to get a sense of how this came to be. So the fact that we had like 30 meetings about this in PEC tells you like how granular we got right one of the first things we asked was okay counsel please tell us the difference between the types of committees that are legally required or not and then also what are the legal requirements around membership and one of the questions that came up was can you there you may remember an email thread from like 2021 around oh sure can you up yeah well yeah it's in my head right can we appoint students to these committees and then we got an email back [00:23:32] that said like here are the people that here are the committees that you can do that with right um and so um rather than just letting that sit out in the ether we decided to memorialize what was legally permissible okay um one of the other things that i had a question about was number two on that same page the committee i apologize can i add a little more to what mr frish said to answer your question stop for time i'm fully good okay all right um still on page four um number two committee appointed um that up to 10 stakeholder organizations or community members um and their [00:24:08] respective committees for no i'm sorry no committees may nominate yes so this is for example i'm the liaison to ace so does this mean that ace can determine that they want 10 additional members to be added to the committee or the board will perhaps provide up to 10 additional members to that committee it's not additional members it's 10 members so total so the membership of the organ of the committee is capped at 10. well community membership this is not including the board [00:24:42] appointees right so this is for the committees that have stakeholder community organizations in the county like the ones who had the league of women and exactly and okay yeah so it's not it's just 10 period for the ones that have community organization continued to be allocated and determined by the committees we don't have a role in that we do have a role we vote every year on them but we but they give us the names that they recommend and then we vote on it yeah i i don't think we've ever not taken one of their names even though we had conversation about one one year we We did. Yeah, no, you're right. We usually just, but it's instead of, there was no process for how we have community stakeholders. [00:25:20] So this was the process that we came up with, was that they give us 10 and then we vote on those 10. And every year they give us 10. So if they decide they want somebody different next year, or let's say there's a charge, they might need a particular expertise on that charge. And the other piece of it is that this won't stop community members from sharing their voices, because one thing we added was a community participation. [00:25:40] So if there's a group that wants to share some comments on a particular thing that's going on, there's a process for that. This is just the members of the working and voting members of the board. And previously we had to amend the governance manual every time we wanted to add somebody to a committee. Or remove. So is there any guidance in terms of who can be selected? [00:25:58] And the reason why I brought this up, and maybe I missed it because I was reading this very quickly. I'm glad to have my hard copy, is that there were some committees that had, they needed to have a member of the League of Women Voters. it just didn't make any sense there was no real alignment there so was is there any guidance here in terms of who that membership should be comprised of um there's a little bit what it says is these committee appointed member um page four under that same number two paragraph you'll see it says these committee appointed members shall have subject matter expertise and unique insights valuable to [00:26:32] the committee's work um now i i understand that right it's and i'll let you know you want to add to this too, but in PEC we had a lot of conversations about how much guidance versus leaving it up to their expertise we should go. And it was difficult because what we felt like is if we give a lot of guidance it would have to be very committee specific, right, because each committee's charge is different, each committee's topic is different. And we wanted to leave a little space for the committees to determine for themselves because they're the ones who are really immersed in this work and immersed and ideally have the expertise [00:27:07] in that subject area to have some leeway but we wanted to give some guidance that look you know help us and this is why the board still votes whoever you're recommending should have subject matter expertise and unique insights valuable to the work right the charge and the work of the committee so that's how we try to find a compromise between being too prescriptive and giving some guidance my other question is page five number four staff appointed i didn't notice that there would be a cap there because i know one of the concerns of several committees and i know hrac is [00:27:40] one and um apac is also another where committee members have felt that staff have had outsized influence on their work and so i would not want this to be open-ended because then it means that staff could appoint 15 people even though they're non-voters there are a lot of noise there are a lot of talking and which could unduly impact their work so i would like for this to be capped i have [00:28:05] I have an answer for you. It's already capped. So it says on here, this is where we struggled with making this a manual that applied to all committees and then having specific things for each committee because each committee had different staff appointees depending on the committee. So what we did is we said in here, the school board shall the leadership, it's number four on page five, the leadership team, blah, blah, blah, may appoint non voting as detailed in the strategic governance manual. And then when you go to the strategic governance manual on the pages that where it talks about committee it talks about the number of staff members that can be appointed because we wanted to make that specific to each committee so it is capped we [00:28:43] just this is one of the I think the reason took two years to do this is we want to create a manual that could be used for all the committees but we also wanted to make sure we had space to embed what is particular for each committee and that was the challenge okay I have lots more and I know I lost some of my time trying to turn off my computer so can I ask one more question [00:29:02] Sure. And then please put me on a go back. And this may be how I'm reading it. So just please direct me. On page five, I'm reading about the staff appointments and the committee appointments. On page seven, I'm also reading about the staff appointments. There seems to be some redundancy there. Can you give some information in terms of why it's kind of stated twice under membership and committee appointed committee appointed members. [00:29:35] Go ahead Carl. You're going to see that repeated I think three times. One is one is what are the positions, one is what are their responsibilities, and one is how are they appointed. So if you look at the general the table of contents it kind of lays out what what each of those categories that kind of encapsulate the different types of members are. But it almost says the same thing and one of them says the leadership team central office, the other one says the superintendent. That's kind of minor thing but i can circle back a little bit later on but please put me on a go back okay and [00:30:13] we can always add that to the next step so we can always remove one if we think it's redundant but it was to try to make it clear in different sections of the manual as carl said mr moon thank you thank you thank you mr anderson i'm going to start with a appointments of the members to the committee uh correct me if i understood this wrong that each board member will make basically a nomination, correct? [00:30:44] Not appointing but nomination because it's a subject to school board approver? Yes, that's the same process we have now. So each board member appoints or nominates whoever they have and then it gets voted on at the board meeting, usually the organization, but anytime someone brings an appointment. So until and unless the particular nomination is voted on, the person is not able to start serving? [00:31:07] Yes, they can attend the meeting as a community member, but they can't participate until the board is voted on their nomination. Okay. What about, I think I read somewhere that if a board member who made a nomination of a certain person to the committee is not, for some reason, not satisfied with the appointee's work, the person can be also removed from the, is that also subject to board's approver? I don't believe the removal is subject board approval only the appointment is subject to board approval so if you that's my understanding [00:31:46] but i'd have to go back and double check because that's the process we didn't change that part of the process so but my understanding is that the way it's written is that the board approves them because the board is saying we want this person to be on the committee but since you're their appointee if you want to pull them off you can in 2017 we got legal guidance that indicated that these members that are appointed by or nominated by board members serve at the pleasure of board members and so for example if you were elected to a term midway through the tenure of that board you would not have to keep all of the appointees that your predecessor picked you could tell them [00:32:23] thank you so much for your service i'm replacing you it's up to you and then who you replace with would be approved by the board okay i'll give you another example is because i switched seats right i was at large until through december of 2023 and now i'm a braddock member um my appointees actually went to kyle and i inherited megan's appointees so but they still serve so they serve the at-large seat because they were voted into the at-large seat but they serve at the pleasure of the at-large member so now they they serve the pleasure of mr mcdaniel and same with the braddock district members serve in the braddock district seat because that's where they were appointed by [00:32:59] the board but they serve at my pleasure and so it would be up to me or to mr mcdaniel or anybody to say thank you very much i want to point somebody else or i would love for you to continue so the board members have that right and one of the reasons is because when there is an election and a new board member may come into a seat they have the legal guidance was they have the right to reappoint or point someone new to that seat okay thank you i just want you know those points to be made clear on the manual so that in you know it's not just an election sometimes somebody someone you [00:33:33] have a rep nominated might not be doing the work in the best interest of well i'm pretty sure we clear if we made that clear in here but I'll double check to make sure that's in there but I remember having that it's page three thank you I remember having that in here this is why I like Carl so much he knows where everything is oh so if I want to cut just to ask one more question about appointment so board members make good nomination subject to the full board's consent could the board at the board table come up with a substitute motion to substitute that [00:34:12] person with the someone else I mean yes the board can do anyone can bring a motion or a substitute motion if they wish to I don't know if I've ever seen that in my term but that happened before okay well I'm not at the not at the board like certain members being appointed were objected to buy you know certain board members and I mean it can yes because they're appointed by the board so the not the nominations are nominated by the individual board member appointed by the board so I suppose if a board didn't want to point somebody they could vote no that's still part of the process just again just wanted to make [00:34:48] it clear and about the charges it's going to be a bold charge to be given out at the certain time frames so do I expect the board to have time to discuss boards charges to advisory committees that should be part of that is part of the process that was one of the reasons we put it in a clear process for how the charge is developed it should be the board liaison working with the staff member to help develop the charge to bring it back to the board to discuss before the vote okay and I think I know it not necessarily going to be a work [00:35:27] session right because not everything is a work session but the board gets to see the charge before they vote on it okay I guess you know could at that point you know if they so desire could hold the work sessions to discuss various different charges, but I also remember seeing, I mean, there are so many, so many, so many documents, you know, quickly going over those, uh, or challenging, but I remember seeing that a advisor, those proposed new charge will be included in the report from advisory committee, [00:36:02] the full board somewhere. That's not, um, did I read that wrong? It could be. It could be included in the report as a proposed charge and that would be one way to flag it for the board this because the reports come in may and we don't vote on the charge july or september because of when we change the recess so it could but i'd have to go back so we are whether whether because again it's my recollection is reading somewhere that we are we are this is this is manual we are asking advisory communities to put in in their report to the full board about the new charges for the following year [00:36:39] And that is even before the boards have a discussion about their recommendations, it's basically asking advisory commission. So they're putting their recommendations of the charge, not the actual charge that we have to approve, right? And one of the reasons for that is that we had them more time to look at the charge before we approve it. [00:36:58] So it's not that they're saying, this is our charge, you must do this. It's that they're being very clear and transparent with the public what the recommendation of their charge is, and the board still approves it. I know, Carl, did you want to add to that? Okay, I think my time is up, so if it could, for me, I'll go back. [00:37:17] Thank you. Mr. McDaniel. Sorry about that. Two items, and I'll put this in next steps. I don't know what page this is on, but the list of members for the various committees, specifically the Advanced Academics Committee, I think it's on. [00:37:41] Governance Manual. That's in the Governance Manual part because that's each individual committee. Right, right, right. There is not a specific call out for a special education teacher, so I would like to see that added, and I'll put that in Next Steps. I think that's an important perspective for our twice exceptional students. [00:38:00] There is one in ACSD, of course, but not one in that committee, so I'll put that in Next Steps. The AA, APAC, yes, thank you. And the second point, since we're going to be changing, making some changes to committee structures and, you know, having groups that are up to 10 groups added. I just want to make sure, and I assume this will happen, but I just want to reiterate that we'll go back and let our committee chairs and committee members a heads up that this is coming [00:38:36] down the pipes to be prepared for it going forward. That's all. Yeah, no, absolutely. And that's one reason why we're bringing it now, so we can finish this and have it done in plenty of time to make sure that the committee chairs are supported and the committees are supported. And that's why we're delaying the implementation until the start of the next committee year. So I appreciate those comments and I've taken some notes on adding the special education teacher to APAC. Who's next? Ms. Marin. Great. Thank you. This is great to see all this work. Thank you for all the hard work that's gone into this. So [00:39:11] a few things. The operation manual is great. It's really been needed. When I read the operating manual and then I look at our policy, I think there could be more clarity between the realms that each document is trying to cover so for the operations it's written for that advisory committee member who wants to understand their role and how it's all going to work and that's great the policy the purpose of the policy is to establish responsibilities of standing and ad hoc committees and clarify the school boards and the staff's role and I see some intermingling of both of those things in both places let me just [00:39:48] continue please so the operations manual like for instance about membership term length types selection process that's the board the advisory committee members need to know that so they know what they're signing up for but that process is really the board's process so that to me reads more like a policy but the policy doesn't talk about the board's process the policy talks about the responsibilities of the advisory committee so there's also in the policy [00:40:24] though it does talk about in section 7 it talks about selection and representation so you've got selection and representation in both documents when neither document is explicitly supposed to be talking about that but clearly we need to talk about that so I wonder if we could and also I think there's a lot a duplication of really clear information that we need in both the policy and the governance manual. So can we streamline that policy down and then get the governance manual, excuse [00:40:58] me, get the operating manual to do its thing? I think, do you want me to pause? It's okay. I just think we need more clarity between what three things these three separate documents are doing. Right now the governance manual also speaks about the role of the committees and the membership of the committees, so I just think we need to be clear about that and just keep honing, but I love that there's so much clarity in there. [00:41:25] The state-required committees, which are our Advisory Committee for Students with Disabilities, our Family Life Ed, our Career Tech Ed, and our Title I, I really would like language in there that says that they will be prioritized for being engaged for that summit. [00:41:40] I love that summit idea, but I just worry that it needs to be really explicit so we know that we have to meet those um i will see mr mcdaniel's special education teacher request for apac and raise him a few more special ed staff for our advisory committee with students disabilities we have one special ed teacher on that committee my question and this would probably be for mr foster is can we add more people not to make it overwhelming but right now it says we must appoint people per that list but can we add more can we add um our [00:42:18] Neurodiversity specialists can we add our CSS you know staff I just think it's direly underrepresented to only have one staff member, so I don't know the process to for at like What is the process if the school board wants to change the membership of a committee? [00:42:33] And also what's the process if the school board wants? It was my time totally up it is Can you indulge me? It's only been four years since I asked for this to be worked on if you could just would that be okay? Yeah, thank you. I will try I have two more points, but I do think there needs to be somewhere a process of when the school board analyzes and updates, like Kyle was saying about technology. Is it in there? Did I miss it? Okay, great. The final thing I'll say is I'd like it to be somewhere that the clerks are responsible for tracking membership over time, that they are responsible for tracking membership and also centralizing [00:43:11] the notices about vacancies and about announcements and making sure we get them on the board agenda to approve at a regular cadence. Thank you. So let me, it was a lot there and I didn't quite get all of it down. So if I missed something and look at Mr. Frisch to jump in. One thing I just wanted to clarify, the operating manual isn't just for the community members. It is for everybody. It's an operating manual for, that's why we talk about the board role, the staff. It was really designed for everybody because what we didn't want, and I take your point, right? And I think we can go and look. What we didn't want to do is have three different documents with a lot of different information. The struggle that we ran into [00:43:49] was that, so which is why we tried in the policy to really refer to, you know, it says, well, adopted operating manual, and we try to refer to the operating manual, because we wanted to kind of have everything in one spot, so people weren't looking at this and this and this, right, because sometimes when that happens, right, looking at three different documents, you miss one. So the clarity is that's why we talk about board roles, that's why we talk about appointments. So I don't, i mean i take your points the the main difference from that is that we struggled with the things that were unique to each committee right so that there's like the committee charge is unique to [00:44:26] each committee the summer state mandated some are not so we put that piece in the governance manual because um now i think doing a crosswalk to make sure we're not too duplicative i think it's a really good point but we try to put a lot of that you know ace what's the purpose of ace we cited the code and the membership because the membership for each committee was slightly different so that's kind of how we tried to do it is have as much in one place in the manual and then specify what's unique to each individual committee on that one so um i know you want to say something on this as well so i'll let you speak and i hope that helps answer your question um i'll use my time to talk [00:45:05] about some of your ideas but in terms of the specifics um so we saw the the call outs to the operating manual in the policy as extending the policy through the operating manual so for example in the one section that you mentioned it has like a set we cut out everything that it said previously except for a sentence that basically says read the operating manual right and so that in essence gave the operating manual the weight of policy um because it's an extension of the policy so that's how we saw it doesn't have to be the way but it's interesting that you identify that because the [00:45:44] things that you identify clearly were a consideration for PEC at the time, because we chopped out the entire swaths of information in favor of telling people to consult the manual. Maybe the consulting the manual piece doesn't even need to be in there, but clearly we were of similar minds about what should be and what shouldn't be in the policy, because we're basically saying go look elsewhere. So food for thought. And I, you know, I do think that we could look at this policy and take some more of these pieces and put them in the operating manual and just refer to the operating manual specifically right so that was you know that's one piece and i'll um so that's [00:46:23] kind of to answer that question in terms of um how we can appoint more i think that's the question for the committee is do we want to appoint more right and i think we can decide if we want to appoint more staff to some of these committees or not but i think that's a decision for the board to make you know pec the the recommendations pec made were what we have in here doesn't mean there isn't space for more i think that's a great next step to put in to say do we want to have a process to appoint more staff do you want to process point more people i know that pec felt pretty strongly about um making sure we didn't get these committees so big that it made it i mean if we have 50 people [00:47:02] on a committee and they meet for two hours once a month it would make it very difficult for them to operate and then the other question that pec went back and forth on um is that there's these are community advisory committees right and so staff's role in these committees is to sort of provide information and give advice we have some staff members on there because there's some that where we felt like their voices are really needed so then the question really comes is how much staff versus community versus board appointees do we want to have on these committees because there are you know staff associations and other staff committees i don't have a good answer but we we wrestle with that quite a bit and coming with that balance of the size of the committees and [00:47:39] who's on there so i think that's a question that we would have to determine as a board it could be a next step to put on there um and i think tracking membership over time we can add more in here i think about the role of the clerks if there's specific language on the role of the clerk yeah so that i think is important thing that we could add in there um i think i maybe addressed some of your points or maybe it helped answer your questions but we'll go to go back if you have some mr frisch all right um i just want to talk about my three favorite parts of the uh operating manual [00:48:14] and thank everybody for I think all four of the returning members had a role at least in part in in working on this at some point or another um as well as many of our colleagues who are no longer on the board so kudos to everybody um the three parts that I'm most excited about in addition to formalizing the stuff that has just kind of lived out there in tradition is that we're formalizing how the charge is created we're formalizing how the reports are are developed and presented to the board and we're formalizing um how staff responds to those reports um from the charge perspective [00:48:50] you know a lot of our interactions with these committees has been dependent on the board's time and so you know my experience with committees is that they often feel like they've been rushed or as a or as an afterthought um and so um i like that we are asking the committees to include suggested charges in their in their annual reports so that you're basically jump-starting the conversation with the liaison which then initiates the process identified in The new operating manual. It's much more transparent. It's much more methodical the report itself [00:49:27] We're bringing some clarity to the specifics of what we want in the report so that we're not buried in information that we're we're given the essentials And that we're not getting distracted by shiny objects or what-have-you We're telling people how to develop the reports, and then the summit, which I think is a great, I don't even remember who came up with the idea, but it's a, yeah, it's a great idea to have that instead of a traditional work session. [00:49:53] In my experience, we end up doing a chunk of these committee reports in a work session, and then some of them get delayed until the next school year, which at that point, it's like, why are we even bothering? To Ms. Marin's point, I think it's a great idea to prioritize in the summit the work of the state mandated and then the state sanctioned and then the optional committees in that order. [00:50:17] And, you know, having a process for staff response and follow-up I think is also key to solving one of the biggest issues that members tend to have with the work. In terms of the other details, I'm fine with adding a teacher here, a teacher there to the different committees or what have you. [00:50:37] I believe when we developed the lists, we did it starting with the list of what was legally required in the committees. So as we look at this and we consider next steps, we should probably go back and consult and share with the board the guidance. I have to find it. [00:50:53] the guidance we got around what was legally required, because what made it difficult to just streamline and say everybody's the same was that various committees did have certain memberships that were legally required, and that's kind of referenced in the way that we've, you look at the governance manual changes, and anywhere that there's something different was out of necessity, typically because of the law. [00:51:17] So, you know, I think that we've come a long way on this, And, you know, I very much look forward to getting the wheels in motion to implement it with our friends on the committees. The biggest thing that I think we're getting out of this is that it's no longer, you know, a board member saying, how do we do this? [00:51:37] And then one board member saying, well, the way we've always done it is blank. Because that gives too much discretion to somebody's memory of how things are done. Time is up. It is? It's been up for a little while. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear a buzzer or anything. All right, I'm done. Mr. McIlvain. [00:52:03] thanks miss anderson um so um thank thank you for bringing this is obviously a lot of work over over many years so congratulations to everyone who contributed um i wanted to start by asking um to miss sizemore hyzer since you mentioned that this was based on feedback from committee members and chairs my question now is have we reached out to all the new chairs and committee members i realize this has been a process over three years with three sets of chairs and three committees we have not reached out now because we've got that [00:52:42] our thought was we get the initial feedback as we develop the manual and so we developed the manual for two years and during that course of time we did some check-ins with the committee chairs and the committee members but in the final process we wanted to bring it to the board to get the board feedback and so this final has not been socialized with committee members part of it was with the turnover of the board we need to be turnover committee members and potentially chairs and this was finalized in the fall. [00:53:07] And so the idea was to bring this to the board for the board feedback, but through the process of developing it over the course of three years, committee members and chairs have been consulted on this process. - Okay, I mean, I hope we will build in a way to get the current feedback from current chairs and committee members. [00:53:25] And in fact, with the new board, it would be a great way for new board members to engage with the new committees to which they're assigned. The reason I ask this is the feedback I hear from committees is they want us to stop ramming things down their throats. I know there are some concerns in particular about having the clerk as the contact person. [00:53:46] I think they see that as taking away some of their direct access with board members and liaisons. And another concern I would raise is that how does this affect current members for the next year, and would it not make sense to begin this process in 2025, 2026, instead of for the next year. [00:54:14] And the last thing I'll raise is just as former Peck Chair in an earlier life, I don't know how I feel about Peck overseeing these committees. Obviously, that's what the conclusion you've come to, but I think that that's, anyway, that i don't know that peck is equipped for that just given given everything that that would entail um as the brand new peck chair um i can tell you that i think i i think that peck will talk about [00:54:51] how to make sure that all the committees understand the information that is done is is passed by the board um in order to ensure that we're ready for the rollout for next year so i think that that is definitely something that peck can take on um in that role as a communication point i don't necessarily see if i'm understanding this correctly i don't see that peck is overseeing the committees as much as overseeing the management of the committees if that makes any sense so it's not that we're overseeing the work that's being done we're that's all still out with the individual board members that are assigned to those committees it's more about overseeing the process and so it [00:55:27] has to the process has to live with someone and it makes perfect sense to me that it would be that the process would be owned by peck as a way because it is a moment of community engagement and so we want to so in my view if tell me if i'm wrong but that's the way that i see this working with but i do agree with you that this needs to be populated with everyone um that is out in the committees particularly as we move into the next year with many of us having likely new committee members and so i think that having that moment where maybe not getting i mean committee members [00:56:02] will have access to the feedback or to the documents. They're they're open to the public and so obviously we all of us can engage with different different committee members that have feedback however I do think that we can we we need to understand that this is our document moving forward and this is our direction to those committees and so I think that starting off with the opportunity to get feedback from the committees as to how they were working particularly as we were trying to get something done on paper but at some point we have to make a decision as to how we want to move forward and so getting feedback from those people who have been [00:56:37] long-standing members of committees makes perfect sense but we we don't want this to get mired down anymore for than it needs to at 17 pages that's taken you know how many years so i would i would personally um hope that we can kind of move move forward so um i think that making sure that we That we have a solid plan moving forward of how to engage with the committees after we have their direction makes perfect sense. [00:57:05] So that would be my feedback. And I just wanted to clarify something. When I said PEC oversees, PEC really oversees the structure to discharge your duties, right, and the manual. That's why there's a built-in five-year review process, a formal review. It's not overseeing the committee's work. [00:57:22] It's overseeing the process and structure by which the committees can do their work. And in terms of the clerk, the clerk would really just be involved kind of more of a clerical role or a tracking role, so you're tracking membership, you're tracking notices. But the board member still liaisons, however the board member wants to liaison with their appointee and can talk to any of the other committees. [00:57:44] Any board member can go to a committee meeting if they want to. They're open to the public, right? So it doesn't take away that part. It just takes -- it provides some consistency in tracking. Now, the clerk role is not in here. would be something new to add but it would i think the idea is to provide some consistency in that tracking i know as it is we get every year a report on membership from the clerk of here's what the membership you know here's how often you're not members attendance excuse me here's often each liaison member attended the meetings to kind of help inform our decisions about reappointment or not so if that helps to answer your questions it's not so much supervising the process of working of the as much as the processes by which and the structures in that form of review um you still You still have a minute, Tana, hopefully. [00:58:24] - Yeah, yeah, so just the last thing I would mention is that based on, well, kind of looking at the red line changes, I think there's probably rightfully a fear that we're taking things away and taking membership away from the committees and specific members and representatives of organizations. [00:58:48] So I just think we need to be cognizant of that communicate, you know, why that's the case. And that's true for MSAOC, HRAC, APAC, SHAC, ACSD, and CTAC as well. And I think that's a valid point for PEC to make sure as we do the liaison with the committees, right, in terms of helping them understand what this structure is, what this new structure is, and why. But a lot of it came out of requests from the committees to have more structuring guidance, and from board members themselves to have more structuring guidance, was kind of how this whole thing got started. And it, from several of us who were former committee members for many years wanting that [00:59:26] structure and guidance so did you have anything else mr. Mike okay miss lady thank you so I am gonna come at this as a former employee of 27 years my apologies may I start my apologies this lady okay go ahead sorry go ahead we're just we need to do Mike to mr. Dunn has joined us we do Mike check but we'll do that okay um so I went through all the committees and similar to miss Marin I I have questions about the committee makeup and while I hear what my colleague, Mr. McElveen, just shared regarding community members, [01:00:01] I can just tell you that, I mean, as someone who's worked in this system, we're not even really aware of these committees. I am because I spoke to some of these committees as an employee, but I never, ever felt like as a staff member I understood their charge. I understood what they, you know, what they accomplished or what they tackled. [01:00:21] And I feel like, you know, when you're boots on the ground at the school level, you often feel like you have no representation at Central or with things like this. So I'll just go through and tell you what stood out to me. [01:00:37] The first one is obviously, I'm going to go in order here, but ACSD, similarly, yeah, I mean, one teacher, I mean, that doesn't even touch. elementary is different than middle is different than high cat a versus cat b css you know neurodivergent you know autism versus emotionally disturbed i mean there's this gamut that i don't think most community members and i think a lot of them are parents of a child and they have they're an expert on their child um but not necessarily an expert on the continuum of things and i just [01:01:14] think that and again not understanding the charge of some of these committees i just think that that there's, you know, we need more people who are doing the work at a table to have a discussion about what that work looks like. I'll move on to the Title I. I don't understand, because given the number of Title I schools we have, that we have to have representation for every single Title I school. [01:01:35] State law. State law requires that. If I may, state law requires on ACSD that there's a certain percentage that have a child in the system. That's your state law. Same with the other one. certain percentage of the makeup of the committee committee yeah has to be a parent that's state law makes me you have to add parents if you add staff I'm just saying yeah I understand that's just sort of you know counterintuitive so the state authorized I'm going to go to those advanced academics similarly you know I think we need an AP and IB and a DE teacher and a SPED teacher [01:02:11] completely agree with Ms. Marin on that and then I'm going to get to you know the other thing is on advanced academics, and I'll say this as a former director, I think that, you know, director of student services are named nowhere in your documents, and in many cases, they are like associate principals, and they are managing things that their principals don't, I mean, I had a principal came to me and said, what are young scholars? You know, I had a principal came to me and asked me, I mean, questions that I thought to myself, are you kidding me, right? [01:02:39] Except for that's the world I lived in all the time. So the other thing is the shack, right? the school health advisory committee. I see you want a principal on there, but middle school and high school directors, I believe, are far more entrenched in what's going on social emotionally with our kids than our principals. So I would, you know, evaluate that. And again, if that's state mandated, even though it's state authorized, if it's mandated that way, then maybe we can add a director of student services. But I think that perspective is missing. And I think at the elementary level, that would probably be some type of, you know, veteran counselor who might be at like a you know larger school um like a like a you know belvedere or something like that um [01:03:16] so so again those were just my reactions as i went through it is that as staff you know i just think we need to do a better job with transparency i think our staff need to understand what the what the committees are and what their charge is i mean i think it's not just a matter of us understanding them time will you wrap up your time okay so all right thank you okay i'm gonna go ahead and take my my turn really fast and then we'll go to go backs unless you have any okay one thing that I will say is the feedback that I've received from committee members is that they want to ensure that the work that they're doing is [01:03:55] actually going to be incorporated in in taken back so I think that well I I understand that that it feels like and to mr. McElvain's point though it feels like we may be requiring a certain charge or anything like that I I think that that process is important in order to make sure that we can actually take the work of the committees and use it for what we need to use it for. [01:04:20] And so I do think that creating a clearer process will eliminate maybe some of the feeling that they are being dictated to. I also definitely hear Ms. Lady's point about the fact that we need to make sure that the work of these committees is populated more with the community. I think that that's something else that Pat can talk about at the same time that they're talking about how to get this information out to the committees is how to make sure that the community understands the work that these committees are doing so and i think that will also increase interest in engagement as well which is i think an important aspect of this so that it we get a breadth of participation so i won't take long because i think i've spoken and trying to answer [01:05:00] but i'm trying to focus my questions on all my statements on answering or explaining some certain things i wanted to lift up a couple things one um i think there's you know i i hear you and i agree with you right that there's a lot of valuable perspective the staff can bring um to these and i think there's a reason why there's staff liaisons and names and i think there's room to look at some of these committees do we want to add school levels yeah do we want to add more you know well there's a teacher dss you know that school level staff i do want to lift up just that the main purpose of these committees is a place for the community to give their feedback and so there's [01:05:34] always a tension and a balance between having staff give their feedback versus the community, right? And I think we just need to be mindful that the main purpose there this is a regular consistent way for community members who have expertise and passion in the area to give their feedback to the board. I'm not saying that there isn't room to look at would there be more valuable voices for staff here and there. I just think if we are going to try to make staff committees for the boards that may be something to talk about as a forum topic, but the purpose of these is for the community to have that engagement to the board. And so I just want to lift that up. You know, [01:06:13] maybe there's a space to add non-voting staff members. So it's still community feedback, but we get that voice from the staff as an option, right? So we have the room for a staff member who has the expertise or experience to be able to share it without necessarily it taking away from this being what the community is recommending to the board, just as an option, [01:06:31] you know, to throw out there. There are some state requirements. The reason why the state requires it to number of parents is because the purpose of the board is community feedback. And so they wanted to be very clear that they wanted the community to have that place. And some others have some of those state challenges and requirements as well. As far as I wanted to say to Mr. Macklin, I understand like change is hard for any committee, right? And change can be seen as why are you taking this away? Why are you, you know, from anybody, right? So I understand your point. It's interesting because most of what I've heard from community members is a begging for more structure because they want their work to be meaningful right and they want to know [01:07:07] there's follow-up to their work and there's there's real consideration for their work so that was really the impetus behind doing this initially I think you know to Ms. Marin's point we can take another look at the way the governance manual and the policy is to make sure that we're not duplicative right and it's in the right spot so I think that's there's some space there to look at that and I appreciate you bringing that up but I think the couple things that I'm really excited about is that as a board member sitting there getting these reports they were all of you know the place because the committees didn't have guidance and as a liaison of different committees the different ways the committees operate were very different and so the results were different [01:07:41] and i think the work that people are doing to um and the time that they're giving and the expertise that they're sharing i think giving them that structure to really put good guidance and consistency around their work and follow-up is is critical so i'm really excited about this work um so i'll just you know state you know state that and leave it at that i say um first of all i want to thank you for all of the work you've done for all of the years i know that this wasn't an easy task and i know that um there was a lot of information particularly for us new members to [01:08:20] process uh i do want to reiterate miss lady's point because i coming as a community member that has worked with the community and this is it's not a question it's just a comment that it is important that we have the correct cross section of our community involved and that you know in the future we look at barriers for some of our community members to participate um so i want to make sure that every voice is there in minority language voices socioeconomically limited voices because i've been a member of these committees before and i've seen a lack of those voices [01:08:57] also when we are sitting in that committee it's a way to build bridges between staff and community members and i do believe it is community voice uh but again as somebody that was a parent and then that's how my trajectory started in fairfax county public schools once i started working in the schools i became much more aware of certain things that as a parent i thought oh this is a no-brainer but then once you get in the schools you realize you get calibrated about what the reality is so and many of our community members are parents i mean many of our staff members are parents who [01:09:32] have children in the schools so i think first of all thank you for the work um i think you've done a great job i think this is like laying the groundwork for us to start moving forward and then for some of us for some of the new members to start looking at ways that we can build on this to make sure that all community voices are heard including staff voices okay um we're gonna check [01:10:02] mr dunn's audio and he also wants a moment to speak uh okay we can hear you okay uh well thank you for the opportunity to uh to share some thoughts um uh first you know i'd like to echo everything that um miss st john cunning said um i agree with her comments thoroughly and misladies as well um i i guess you know in in trying to revise the advisory committee operating [01:10:41] manual uh you know my focus is uh making sure that uh the outputs of these committees are are used and useful um by by the school board because uh in speaking with uh some members or and previous school board members um there's been uh some frustration that uh we have um you know a lot of very talented uh members with a lot of uh knowledge of different areas and uh but sometimes [01:11:21] their reports um which they expend significant time and effort uh creating uh you know going go nowhere and uh you know it's similar to how politicians if they don't want to work on a problem they'll create a blue ribbon commission and it looks like activity but it doesn't result in action and and so you know i don't have a specific revision or comment for the operating manual but i hope we can work towards where um the community members who dedicate their time and [01:11:54] effort actually see you know action implemented as a result of their input given that we're 12 members of you know very diverse experiences and backgrounds you know but we can't do it all ourselves and getting the community involved is is wonderful but we need to make sure that we're making productive use of their energies so that we we continue to have the benefit of their expertise and experience thank you okay i just wanted to let you know that there is a process we added to this advisory committee manual that has a specific follow-up process so that was one [01:12:31] of the big things we heard from committee members is that they wanted some you know they put all this time into report and they could already hear nothing about it so we did put that process in there so hopefully that'll help address some of your thoughts with your great thoughts mateo sorry if i may follow up that um i did see that um and i think that's that's you know a strength um if i might suggest just um you know and i don't know if this would require amendments to manual but when you look at office of inspector general reports in the federal government or if you look at you know misco or auditor general you know there will be recommendations in those [01:13:08] reports and every quarter or every six months you know there's follow-up by that you know auditor general or inspector general to see if they've been implemented and and that's you know posted publicly for transparency purposes for the public so um in terms of follow-on having some you know if they're making recommendations um there should be a formal response by the school board um uh and fcps saying we either agree with us or don't agree with this and this is why and if we are going to implement there should be public transparency as to whether it's going to be implementing kind of [01:13:47] time frames so the public can track um whether whether recommendations were followed and and if so how thank you thank you mr dunn um dr anderson i'm actually going to pick up where mr dunn left off because one of the things that i know from my time on the board not having been a person who served on a committee is that they want a response to it they want to know that this work matters they give the recommendations year in year out some of the committees that i work on particular particularly ace they started to track like we gave you this and t-pack does this too we gave you [01:14:24] this recommendation in 2019 and we heard nothing you've done nothing so i i appreciate the summit i appreciate the response and then the feedback to the response but speaking to transparency and bringing the public in i don't think we can lose if we have a conversation where staff is offering their response and the committee is there and we're discussing it rather than just something in writing if there's some space to make that happen i i think it will be great because people will see oh this work matters i will now join these committees because they care because we also know the timeline of these recommendations it's not ideal we have these reports in may june [01:15:04] july even we go into the summer we forget all about it budget starts in september and we don't necessarily pull that back in because a lot of their recommendations have budget implications and so i think that's where a lot of it has gotten lost in the sauce so to speak i don't think it's been intentional having said that i robin you kind of said something that i say all the time which was funny to hear you say it that the parents are experts in their children and not necessarily in the work and i fully agree with that having said that i do think this is the [01:15:37] community's voice staff does have and should have other avenues that dr reed has put together in ORDER FOR THEM TO BRING UP THE INFORMATION. SO IT IS QUITE A BALANCE. IT IS ONE TO WALK A TIGHT ROPE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TALK TO ON PAGE 14 WHERE IT SAYS THAT THERE'S A POLICY QUESTION FROM THE COMMITTEE CHAIR THAT THEY WOULD GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD CHAIR. IS THAT NOT [01:16:04] THE ROLE OF THE LIAISON? WHY IS THAT DIFFERENT? 14 I BELIEVE. YES. 14. IT IS B. ONGOING [01:16:21] policy issues. That's the whole job of the liaison. Oh, the manual. I'm looking at page 14 of the manual. It says the committee chair will reach out to the school board chair with input concerning ongoing annual reports. I was looking at the wrong annual reports. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead, Carl. So just to clarify, I think the point there was, let's say that the board was having a work session on some topic and it tangently related to the work of one of our committees. [01:17:01] i think we we said that they would reach out to uh the committee chair i don't think that there were excuse me the the uh the school board chair um because it was different than the committee's quote unquote process and work it was something separate from but i don't think that there's necessarily any requirement that couldn't be changed here to change it to the liaison the the i think in order to have impact on the policy like if they we wanted to you know incorporate some of their work or whatever ultimately would have to get to the chair for for the purposes of [01:17:35] the work sessions or what have you but um so i don't have any objection to it being liaison but i have some background on that one what happened was there was a couple times i think when we're hearing the special education enhancement plan and the ai report there's a couple times where we were hearing a work session the board was on a particular topic that um related to the work of the board may not the charge for that year but in like related to the acsd's overall work or apex work and um they wanted to be able to come speak at the work session or be available to speak at the [01:18:08] work session which is different than the liaison work with the report of the committee and because the who gets to speak at the work session kind of the admin of that was the role of the school board chair slash vice chair so that's what this piece was put in for to give a process that if we are working on a topic that is um maybe either something that the committees are looking at or the committees are interested in there's a process that um they can it's still up to the board chair to come speak to the board at a work session so you know one of the comments was will staff speak you could benefit from hearing us speak and that's what this process is put in place for [01:18:46] and i how long do we have for this section no no no how long until this lunch i think lunch is what 12 12 30. 12 30 so we have another hour i was just texting you to ask you whether you would rather break it 12 or 12 30. i think 12. i have more inquiries and i don't know if others do and if we have 12 30 i'd like to make sure that we utilize that time we can watch i want me to see where we are at 12 and take a vote of the board to see where they want to go till 12 30. how about [01:19:17] that we can see where things are i can put you from mm-hmm mr exit uh thank you for doing all the work on this on this manual it's very detailed my question is and I've served on a HRAC committee myself a few years ago and it just a lot of time goes into attending these event in these meetings as I like porn meetings they're like go for many hours and you go monthly for the entire year and and then you have to do some work with subcommittees and like in inside your committee you have to do [01:19:53] more work so this is mostly we are asking a lot from people to volunteer their time and take the time out of family so is there any consideration of compensating them per meeting has that ever occurred and the other thing would be because then we can tap into some way to you know talented people who are really have quite a bit to contribute and the second thing is that again the barrier things i feel like the school board member puts their committee vacancies on their website and newsletter but something is still missing we we might we're not reaching the [01:20:32] population overall where like i'm just speaking for like the indian community and asian community that we don't see a lot of representation um on these committees from so i would like to see how we can you know improve that as well thank you i just wanted to share some history because peck talked about that quite a bit i'm sorry i have a point of order i really like to hear what my colleagues have to say in here their questions rather than the constant responses um and i certainly have some more to share so this is a departure from how we usually do our meetings normally have staff to answer questions but because this came out of committee carl and i were trying to answer that as that part but we're happy to not answer i just want to give some [01:21:11] history as to how that conversation was happened to help miss dixit understand but if board members would rather not hear from us as kind of taking the role the ones who did this work that's fine is there a possibility for you to grab the questions and then just kind of talk about it at the end because it has been quite a bit i'm happy to try to do that i just don't know if i'll get to all of them and all the points as i hear them but i'm happy to do that as separate from my [01:21:35] time if he has won that's fine with me yeah i'm done okay mr moon thank you so much let me first make a comment upon a the boards that i served on previously how they struggled with many of the points they were being raised at the meeting today you know first of all it's a workload issue on the [01:22:11] part of board all these committee presentation committee members come at the end of the school year are coming to you you know some some reports may be just a few pages but most of the reports thousands of pages and they're all coming to you together and each presentation is a lot of that whole discussion presentation and questioning and discussion whole thing is about an hour and that it does not really give enough time for the board members I mean these are advisory committees to the school board and the school board should be discussing it and make some [01:22:51] decisions never have enough time to have a meaningful discussion and come to the decisions so the staff could start implementing working on the decisions made and how we are we supposed to give a progress update to the public and committee and advisory committees is the school board does not give specific directive to the staff so i'm looking at some of the things the board liaison needs to do because obviously i'm a board liaison to one of the committees [01:23:28] if the board does not make those decisions and recommendations how am i supposed to be doing to work with staff liaison to provide the progress on the recommendations board did not make any decision so summits great idea i'm going to be able to do all of this within an hour like just as we have done in the past we failed to do in the past for many many years i am guilty about being a part of those boards not being able to give really meaningful feedback and making [01:24:01] decisions so workload on the part of all whether those things we also the at one point or more that we discussed about whether those these presentations will all have to be made at the end of the year whether there's a way to do this throughout the whole year because many of the many of the recommendations will not be able to implement within one year you know many of the work on the part of other committees cannot be completed in one year either so some of the work could go on for multiple years you know keeping into do things in mind or you know let's come up [01:24:38] with something that is really practical you know achievable because i don't think i can put in 24 hours a day seven days a week on the committee's work thank you thank you mr moon uh miss maren thank you so i think again just with the clerk's help tracking the uh recommendations could be something that the clerk further helps with. And also report management. I believe I have seen reports held on board docs on our website and on our internal drive. So what could that process be? And who actually owns that website for our committee pages? And can we have the [01:25:17] meeting minutes shown up? And prior year's reports remain on the website either indefinitely or certainly the previous year. Regarding using and sharing the committee's work, you know, the timeline of the summit in May could be okay if perhaps an idea is over the summer the staff create their responses? And then what if we have a budget meeting in the fall? [01:25:38] Because that is budget development season. And this has always been the crux of it, when to have these meetings. But if we actually have one work session devoted to the reports, I think we could really then show the public that we are using their recommendations. As far as the role of the liaison, it is included in the operation manual on section two, page 12 under responsibility. I would say that that should really be the first part of that section, but can we flesh that out a little bit more? What is the role of the liaison? [01:26:06] I suggest we have time in our regular meeting to have the liaison report out at each meeting just like we do for our standing committees. You know, a two or three minute, because this is our working meeting and this is how we show the public that we are listening to them. I also think, unless I didn't see it, there could be clarity in any one of these materials about guidance from members on how we make appointments to get to the issue of are we getting a diverse community? Now, I know how I go about doing it. I don't know if it's how other people have done it, but we could talk to each other or take a gathering of that information and also what our perception is of how we do this job. Again, I do my liaison [01:26:44] role in the way that I think works best, which is kind of how being on the school board is. We each go about the job as we see it's most effective, but again, I'd like to know how other people do their job and can we come up with some best practices? Thanks. Thank you, Miss Marin. [01:27:00] Mr. Frisch. All right. It is gratifying to hear some of the same points that we grappled with in Peck coming up in this conversation because it means that we were not far off from like the types of things where the mind goes, etc. I like a lot of the things that I've heard particularly around you know the role of the clerk. I think when this work was done we had a clerk's office that was wildly understaffed and so it didn't it didn't even come up in the mind that we would think through so i think that needs to be tackled um uh i also uh to mr moon's point about um uh the role of the [01:27:37] liaison i think it's actually quite limited in terms of what you know a lot of it is formalizing what happens right like when a committee has this issue they go to the liaison right um and and so i think that that is helpful um but in a macro sense i think um what we have here is something that brings clarity to the biggest issues that our committees have that they don't feel like the work that they do goes to any purpose um and even when we do engage their thinking um it kind of drops off after a certain point right they get the response from [01:28:16] from staff and then, well, who knows, right? Sometimes it moves forward and sometimes it doesn't, but there's never any really, and that's because the board hasn't given clear direction on that front, at least not in recent history, 'cause we don't have a process. And so one of the things I think that we're focusing on, Melanie and I as chair and vice chair this year, is like nailing down some of these processes that have been kind of opaque because we do have a fully functioning clerk's office now and we do have a new board that is pointing out things maybe people got comfortable with because it just didn't seem like it was going to change and so [01:28:50] as it relates to this i think moving forward and seeing where the next steps uh take us um is you know i'm interested in looking at those next steps and seeing what i agree with and and sharing my input as well but i appreciate the conversation thus far it's funny i was almost on the same wavelength i was gonna say and i apologize for trying to talk so many of the things that were brought up were discussed at length in pecs i kind of was trying to share some of the history as to what the discussion was but i'll try to sort of share it here um i just want to go over matthew i so appreciate you mentioning consistent follow-up if you look at page 17 that's what the pec tried to do so we have a written response the staff liaison submits a written response and plan [01:29:29] action to the recommendations the staff liaison updates the committee in december about any progress on the report submission recommendations the school board liaison stays in regular contact updates the school board on the progress towards the recommendations and there's an ongoing tracking system put in place on page 17 not saying i think it's great to put the room the clerk in we had such a um lower functioning school clerk office because we didn't have the same staff level we didn't think about that but there we did think through a formalized consistent reporting back on page 17. [01:30:01] so first thing i want to mention the summit idea actually stella and i thought about that when we were chair and vice chair i will tell you that mr moon is very correct the workload on the board is hard and the reason the summit hasn't happened until now is because we couldn't get the board to commit to what would be two saturdays worth of work so just keep that in mind that in the middle of graduations at the end of the year in doing budget it is two full days of summit to get 12 committees heard so just it's a it sounds great in concept but in implementation we never could find the date that everyone could make so something to think about um i also think one of the reasons we we talked a lot about um what you talked about marcia really great points so how do we have [01:30:39] representation and that's a lot of is through who we appoint right because that's what we control so we talked a lot about how prescriptive do we want to be how much we want to tell board members what they have to do to get their appointees versus give them guidance the previous board really was like we don't want to tell you mr mcdaniel this is how you must find your liaison right and so we put in shall not ideas i think it's a great conversation for this board to have decide how do we want to do it but just keep in mind that if we're really prescriptive all the steps you have to do some board members may or may not like that and we don't have any mechanism to really control each other's actions so do we want to put something in here what we require board [01:31:18] members to do that we don't have any sort of mechanism to enforce things to think about because i actually liked the idea of having more prescriptive process and i do think tying to the budget is a really good point because one of the issues that comes in with the recommendations is the recommendations by the committees are made without budgetary impact knowledge conversation So they may be making recommendations that aren't budgetarily able to do, and that becomes part of the tension. [01:31:42] So is there something to think about? I know my time is up, but I hopefully, I don't think I addressed every single comment and tried to get some history, but hopefully I addressed some of the main ones. So I think this is a good starting point and a lot of information is a starting point that can be tweaked. But we really talked a lot about that tracking process because that was one of the biggest concerns we heard was the lack of follow-up. [01:31:59] So that's page 17 for you all to take a look at. Ms. Leidy. Yeah, I'll be brief. I just want to echo what Rachna said, and I believe, I don't know who else, but in regards to the makeup of the committees, I think in light of one Fairfax, you know, I think we would all in a vacuum be good about making sure we have diverse people who are on committees, but it might not be that this particular committee has the diversity it needs. [01:32:27] So to some extent, I think it warrants perhaps a discussion about, you know, who we're thinking of appointing just to make sure we do have some demographic representation on all of our committees. And, you know, I just think that that's going to be a bit more inclusive and support our One Fairfax model. [01:32:48] Okay. Dr. Anderson. Very quickly, the email address, I think that's definitely a good start because up to now only a few of the committees had it. [01:33:05] Can we have consideration for it to be an evergreen email address like chair so that it just continues rather than link to someone's name? Going back to page 14, upon consultation with the committee chair, the thing about inviting committees to speak at work sessions, I'll be honest, I think this is a slippery slope. [01:33:27] If we're going to provide it for certain things, we need to be available to provide it to all things and not just the people we choose. This is a space where people who don't agree with this board and don't get the opportunity to talk at work sessions will see this as a slight. So I see that as maybe something we put off for a bit. [01:33:46] I also want to go back to, I think I mentioned this and Melanie definitely mentioned this, just to reduce the redundancy. And is the idea that this will be an appendix that lives inside of the governance manual? Because I don't think it doesn't need to necessarily stand alone because we have a lot of appendices in the governance manual. [01:34:04] and if so we could definitely tighten it I could see this being a lot fewer than 17 pages I'll wait for your answer Roshna oh I think that was the idea that would be an appendix of the governance manual and it was the idea of why it's so long is that this would be the one-stop shop essentially for all of this stuff I don't I think it's fine if we want to shorten it or not but that was the idea I think we shorten a lot of the things that people bring up will be taken out so I think that's always attention thank you because also if it's going to live as an appendix in the governance manual we already have another section where it shows up which is part b so having the duplicative information may not be as helpful um one of the things that you talked about with the summit [01:34:43] which is it's in the middle of graduation season and these are saturdays maybe that's not the right time maybe it's later after the graduation season because we also have these um board members these committee chairs who may want to be partake partaking in these efforts and if it's going to be a time that we're already running around and i know we are during that season especially those of you at large who go to all of them maybe that's not the right timetable maybe we could move that off a little bit um and i i need to get a little bit more understanding in terms of the [01:35:17] process is owned by pec what is the process that pep ec is owning i wasn't clear i mean this structure yes but beyond this what did you mean miss anderson i meant that we would be owning the somebody has to own the trigger to look relook at the document that kind of thing and so what i mean is owning the process in terms of actually following through to someone's tracking the fact that it needs to be done i understand that it would be a governance issue as well but i think that it makes sense for it to to be distributed out just because of the way that it no that's very helpful because i was thinking that did you did we mean oversight over the [01:35:56] committees no thank you all good um appreciate the comments so in terms of membership of staff versus others on the committee and whatnot there has been a concern in the past from people on committees that we have loaded up the committees with staff people as a way of limiting the community quote unquote the community voice and so what we tried to do in terms of the membership [01:36:31] is leave room for plenty of people to be added to the committees by you know with subject matter expertise that can change from year to year depending on the charge of the committee and then also you've got the superintendent having a role in in how they pick the staff for the committee i think the board could probably do some work if we have specific concerns from committee to committee we can obviously relay those concerns to the superintendent when those people are selected i also know that some and one of the reasons the language says in collaboration with the committee is because some committees have expressed specific interest in the types of [01:37:10] people from gatehouse who are engaged in their work i will caution though that if we get into talking about the specific types of jobs beyond what's legally required be on the committee we will go from having let's say a social worker to having a school psychologist to having a nurse to having a you know a teacher well why only a special ed teacher who does elementary school why not middle and high school but also why not our special schools and you know like there is no end to the voices you can have in these and they are community by nature and so what i most want [01:37:48] out of these committees i get plenty of feedback from staff about all sorts of things and this work of these committees is filtered to the board through what is possible and not by staff and so It's on me to take what the committees are recommending and to seek counsel from a variety of people who would be charged with implementing these things to determine if it's a good idea with proceeding. [01:38:12] But I really, really, really feel strongly that we can't dilute the community voice too much. And if we do add an extensive number of staff people, they cannot be voting members because I don't want our community members feeling like they're being trumped by a room full of staff people who have more votes than they do. [01:38:32] Ms. Heismarheiser. I mean Carl said that piece exactly what I was thinking so I'm not gonna repeat what Carl said but I agree I think there's a slippery slope Ricky I wanted to bring up the part you mentioned about the work session speak I agree with you and it was a strong conversation in PEC about that part and there was people on the PEC committee that felt strongly to have that in there but I actually agree that our work sessions are for us you know staff present whatever the topic is if people in the community want to give us feedback or input right like you know staff can email us they can email us they can talk to us we can talk to our liaison so i actually agree with your point there but it was a strong conversation in peckin and this committee felt strongly at that point to have [01:39:10] it in there i'm not saying that's right or wrong just saying that you know i agree with you 100. it's the same thing with to me with the of adding too many people or adding too much why this stuff and not that stuff i think becomes a dangerous precedent and this is a consistent steady way for the community to engage with us and that's why i keep going back to that i wanted to just bring up the graduation season and summit i've talked to some of you guys about this is one of the things that causes the challenge at the end of the year is that there's a change in the board recess we changed it from being all of august because we start school earlier to mid-july to mid-august and that crunches the end of the year so even if you get through mid-june with graduation season [01:39:48] then you've got fourth of july and people are traveling which means not just sometimes the board members but like the committee chairs might be traveling right so trying to schedule all of that especially for a summit the full day i'm just throwing that out to you all it is really challenging because you've got a month with a holiday in between to make sure not just that the board members can attend but the committee chairs can also attend so um as we think about how we want to hear these charges the other challenge to that is if i we talked a lot about can we hear them throughout the year and i think it's a really good point but to do that we've got to then rejigger how the committees work right because if the committee is starting their work at the beginning of the school year they won't be ready to present us a report in January and then [01:40:28] February and then March and then April so it was that slippery slope of then do we reconstitute committees all different times of the year and not have it right that was and so peck decided that was sort of one step too far at this point we want to get this out but that's the challenge of having them stagger their reports but it was quite a long conversation so we kind of left it as it is I personally love the summit idea I just operationalizing it is a challenge Mr. Moon yeah I thought a little bit about summits. How they would be different from, I don't know what the [01:41:01] last board did, but the board that I served on, we picked several evenings and each evening would have about three community reports. Three hours usually went for four hours and there was probably more than enough for a given evening. So, you know, that could be characterized as a summit, whether whether whether you do it on saturday or evening probably doesn't really matter but again the bottom line the issue was workload on the part of the board to whether they would be able to [01:41:39] accomplish all they need to accomplish within certain window of time which is usually end of the year and gotta give a new charge gotta make a decisions on the recommendations to give directions to the staff and became almost impossible every year whether whether you know we may be changing our manual or updating manual whether this is going to accomplish that whether this is going to change change the workload what this is not change the time frame of our workload or whether [01:42:17] this is going to change how the board will work its individual board members those are the questions as I really have. And I also want to comment upon something that brought up by Mercia, that cross-sectional representation needing to be on the advisory committee. [01:42:39] Absolutely agree. So it behooves all of us, school board members to all of us, because we are nominating community members. So we have to really talk to each other. And also, even though I'm an Asian American, I don't want other board members to look to me to find Asian Americans to serve on the advisory committee. [01:43:04] I represent the whole county, whole county. So if you're looking for Asian American representation, Hispanic, it's you, all of us trying to find those. And also, it's 1/3, about 1/3 of the community is a language minority. [01:43:24] I mean, are we ever going to have a language of my own parents to serve, committee members to serve in those committees who may have language barriers? So those are some of the things that I think we need to really think about. Thank you. Dr. Anderson, did you need another go back? [01:43:48] Given the conversation I heard around the table, and I know we have the next steps thing, but that's another thing, and when we talk about workload and we still have about at least 20 minutes to this section, can I ask for just a consensus just to see around the table where people fall with page 14, with striking out number two, which is the three-minute work session discussion, having people come to talk about that. [01:44:14] Who would be against that? This is page 14, number two. Who would be against striking it? I mean, because if people have concerns, I can make it easier. I'm double negatives, right? Okay, I want you to remember that. [01:44:32] Who would have an issue with striking this from the document number two which is to invite committee chairs to speak at work sessions so i think we should use the next steps process because i think everybody is i just wanted to get a general consensus i don't want to put in the next steps if people have have um objections and also we have the time and i don't see any other speakers and it's just one less thing for us to go and do later on if there are significant objections then i'd like to know so i could maybe go talk with those [01:45:06] people further because we don't get a chance to talk more about these things after this so you would object to removing the three minute i just wanted to understand why do you want it to be removed because typically work sessions we don't invite people to speak it's the board's work session and i think we are setting a precedent in which if we invite certain people or they ask us to come whatever it is however this lands and they speak at a work session obviously to influence whatever the decisions would be this may be a problem when other individuals who don't see [01:45:44] things the way that the board sees things are not getting a chance to be invited here and to have their input because they only have the input at the community participation during the regular board meetings so it's either we're able to provide this i think for a lot of people or none of the people and i don't necessarily think that the work session period is time to do that it's just a slippery slope it's just i think this could be an issue where people really hang us up because they didn't get the invitation to speak and they have an opposing viewpoint yeah yeah i'd love to [01:46:22] hear people's thoughts on that thank you so i wanted to address some of the things that ilia mr moon brought up um about the time and the end of the year and how it's a lot to do one thing to consider is that in doing the summits we're eliminating uh the other meetings that we used to have to to do this and i will tell you there's not been a year since i've been on the board where we've managed to successfully do all of those reports with all of those committees in [01:47:00] fact in at least two or three of the years we've been returning to the final three or four committees to have their reports at some point well into the next year which then it kind of at that point it's like are we doing this because we're supposed to do this because it's certainly not informing anything that's currently being done by the committee um so it does that um i also think that um you know there's nothing written anywhere about how we would take these reports and so this at least formalizes that maybe it needs to be massaged a little bit but it formalizes it i think in many ways yes we could play with the calendar a bit about when recess is and whatnot [01:47:41] but i think in order to actually have one of the complaints that board members have had about receiving the reports is that the conversations are fairly truncated and not give and take and so the summit idea was an effort to to have a more of a give and take with the committees to invite the full committee to come to the summit instead of just having the one leader obviously they wouldn't all present but there's a lot of upsides to doing it that way and eliminating the three or four work session evenings that we put aside for this in the middle of june when we are consumed [01:48:18] with all sorts of end-of-year activities to change the whole thing that like ms seismorheiser said and say we would do them at different times would require a wholesale change of how we do the charges how we do appointments etc and i'm not against that but i think we should have our house in order for how we currently do things before we embark on a giant change this can fix in many ways what we currently do and that work can continue like you know thinking through a better way of having the calendar done is not dependent is not independent from um fixing how we currently [01:48:55] do things mistakes did you want to speak no okay uh miss marron yeah i i actually appreciate the question about section B2 on page 14 of the operating manual should we allow the school board chair to invite committee chairs or co-chairs to our work sessions and again that would be not something we usually do I think that's a great opportunity for us to talk about how we create our agendas and our work and I think that our retreat that's coming up on February 10th is another great place [01:49:33] to talk about that because we could re-envision what our work sessions look like or how we engage these committees further so i would for now want to remove that item in the um that section two because i do think that when it comes to changes to our meeting structure we need to have a majority of the board weigh in and this also goes to some other things that have been in flux about our meeting procedures and all sorts of really interesting process things that um we haven't had the chance to have a discussion about for the with this board thanks just really quickly i realize that we've been kind of tossing out the summit word and i don't [01:50:11] know if anyone's really talked about what that what we at least the previous board envisioned what that might look like so just for what the previous board envisioned it would be the difference between the what you're saying in the evenings and the saturday would that we would have multiple committee chairs sit around like a round table with the board members to talk with and amongst each other so versus the way we do it now is one committee comes they present the report board members asked the committee chair questions um we actually send the time to an hour and a half because it always went longer right and but every time since we've been on the board at least three or four of those for whatever reason didn't get heard in that june time frame and then [01:50:47] having to come back in the fall when it's pretty you know it's a little more out of date the summit was more of an idea of trying to get conversation right so the committee chairs could hear from each other because we thought there was crossover like apac and acsd for example there's some crossover And so it would be four at a time, longer amount of time, more of a work session-y kind of conversation was how it was envisioned, which is why that Saturday. [01:51:10] But when you added the numbers of the committees, it just became difficult to operationalize. I love, and I said this to Ms. Anderson, I love that we finally have breathing space with a fully staffed clerk office and, knock on wood, no emergency, to actually have some of these conversations that I think people have been desperate to have. But I agree with Mr. Frisch. I think this is a really good start, and we can sort of look at bigger re-envisioning, right, Mr. Moon, like you mentioned, reports during the year as we move forward. [01:51:34] I actually agree with Dr. Anderson. I said it before. I don't think that part belongs in here because I think that opens a whole different can of worms for how we do work sessions, which maybe is the next step, to your point, Ms. Marin. So I'd be fine with taking that out to answer her question. And I want to just also mention earlier when we talked about follow-up and transparency of follow-up for the recommendations, part of what we added to what their annual report needs to be, and this is page 16, is a section that has a follow-up from the previous year. [01:52:03] So in the annual report, there's a written summary of actions taken by FCPS on recommendations made since the last report. So it would be in a transparent part in the report in May, and that's alongside the process on page 17, which is that quarterly responses from staff liaisons on the report. [01:52:19] So again, room to tweak and improve, but we really did try to put in transparent places for follow-up. So just to flag those for you all since that's been brought up. That's all I had. Mr. Moon, and then I'm going to take my turn. Okay, on the summit idea, just quickly, I mean, we have never done this, so I don't know how, you know, if we decide to do this, you know, I pray that. [01:52:42] become successful. But just, you know, practically speaking, I can only consume so much in one day. If you do that for eight hours of intense conversation, I don't know whether I can do that. You know, six hours could be maximum, which means it's going to be not two Saturdays. It could be more than two Saturdays. So we have to be all prepared to be able to do that. But more important thing is, advisory committees make recommendations to the board, and the boards gotta make decisions [01:53:19] on those recommendations. And over and over again, the board ran out of time, just failed or refused to make those decisions. When the decisions are made, there's nothing to be done. There's nothing to report on their progress because the board gotta make those decisions, which means we probably need to a lot more time to have those discussions to make decisions and we've got to be prepared to do that. [01:53:47] If you want to go this way, that is the point I was just trying to make. And in response, oh, you know, Dr. Enders is not here, so, oh, okay, this is your question about the particular section. I'm not prepared to strike that from the manual yet. [01:54:02] I saw in the past some upsides and some downsides, so I'm not prepared to vote in either way at this point. okay uh mr mcdaniel so a question on this item number two if that item is removed does that therefore forbid or prevent a committee chair from actually being invited to a work session to speak [01:54:33] we don't currently invite anybody to speak at our work sessions other than staff all right so that's a yes okay all right can i it doesn't there's no explicit as far as i know it's just not done so So I would not feel comfortable doing it without a board direction in that way. [01:54:53] Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And just a general, a general comment. The elaborate conversation, and we've kind of, this point has been raised a few times. I want to explicitly raise it. What I'm really happy about with these committees that we try to do the work of tearing down the barriers to citizen participation. [01:55:14] I can tell you on the county side, they're nowhere near as far as we are. And I know because my wife is on a county committee, and she cannot participate remotely. And what that means is, if I am out the evening that that committee meets, we now have to spend money on a babysitter. [01:55:31] And that is, you know, we can do that, but there are a lot of people that can't do that. So we're, in terms of community participation and getting people involved, I think we are far ahead of the game and the standard. And I would certainly want us to see us, you know, want us to see us remain that way. [01:55:47] On item number two, my concern with removing it is I trust our school board chair and I trust our liaisons and I trust our committee chairs that if in the judgment of the liaison and the chair and the school board chair, if there is an issue that is so important that all three of them agree there needs to be input at a work session, I would not want to remove the ability for that to occur. [01:56:13] So whether or not that ability is enshrined in item number two, I'm not sure on. But before I, kind of like Mr. Moon's point, I'm not quite prepared to make a decision on that. Okay. Ms. St. John Cunning. [01:56:33] So that was my concern as well as what Mr. McDaniel was just speaking. We're talking about the importance of hearing the voice of the committees. And, again, because I'm new and we're talking about a new process, and I'm not sure how it's been done in the past or how effective it is, I feel like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth right here. [01:56:59] And so for that reason, I'm not prepared to make a decision on that yet. I do think I need more information. If they're doing such valuable work and there is expertise and there's a policy issue that we could benefit from hearing, it may not be that they're for or against something. [01:57:18] It just might be informative. So I'm just not prepared to make that decision right now because I think I need to learn a little bit more about the process. And I think that one of the discussions we're having here is about the value and importance of the work of the committee in hearing that voice. [01:57:35] Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and take my turn. I had a couple of things related to what we've been discussing. The first question I had is would it help to change the term of people within these committees so that it went from basically the 1st of September through the end of August. [01:57:57] Because what that would do is it would give us the ability to point to who's going to be next and give the charge moving forward, but it would also give room in the schedule to actually have the ability to have people come in and talk maybe at a little bit of a lull. [01:58:13] So that's one question that I had. It wouldn't change the tenor of things that significantly, but it might ease up some of the push at the end of the year. It would also help inform budget issues because it would be closer to that and it doesn't allow us to, as Dr. Anderson, run away for the summer and not recognize what's going on. [01:58:36] The second thing is, I do understand the concern about having it be that we're inviting voices into the work session when we haven't done that in the past. Because we already have a place within our regular board meetings to invite the public in, I'm wondering if that would be a better format to do that, just because we already have that within either that or offer the opportunity for written feedback. [01:59:01] So if there's written information that could be included to everyone as a response from a committee chair if there's a policy or something like that that we're discussing. I think that that would be another way to do it if we don't wanna actually have them come in, which is also maybe prohibitive for certain people to be able to take time during their workday to come in and speak. [01:59:22] The other thing that I will say is, and this is a complete aside, just as a pet peeve of mine personally, I would very much like to propose that documents like this are formatted in such a way that it is clear on every single page it comes from fairfax county public schools and it comes from the board specifically and i am i'm hopeful that you guys may indulge me just a little bit on in terms of formatting just to ensure that this is tightened up so that it's very clear that it comes from us and is the professional nature [01:59:52] with which i hope we move forward so i believe that is it at exactly 12 oh miss dixit did you have your okay go for it i think uh i was just gonna say that miss anderson the same thing that maybe timeline can be changed a bit to accommodate uh you know again the summer travel and things like that and um and i i'd want to just like that spread out uh because everything is at the end of the year and then you have to listen to all these reports um the other thing i like the idea of uh [02:00:28] public you know our regular meetings people speaking at that the only concern i have is that we do not provide feedback or or unless they become like a panelist who are just like the staff goes back and forth with us they can participate but not not from like as a participant as a public and um lastly i would say that as a as being part of this one of the committees um there is the school board school board members do not see any progress throughout the year and we even had a like we had difficulty even finding the right issue what was like you know [02:01:06] taking the charge what should be the main charge of the our committee and and i think that feedback from the school board members not just your district but overall from everyone maybe once in between will really help and just also the engagement will look more like we are more engaged and just listening to them at the end of the year thank you thank you um mr dunn thank you um i i [02:01:40] think if if possible given the um important work that's done by the uh committee members uh they should have a term of more than than one year i mean i understand that's subject to renewal but um and most people serve for multiple years but i i think it's important that they be able to serve for that year and then know that they will be reappointed to be able to follow the uh the progress of the implementation of their recommendations um and i have since um you know my previous comments looked at the follow-on um section of the operating manual and i i don't [02:02:19] think it's as detailed as as as it should be to provide transparency to the um to the committees that uh you know it's not as detailed as it should be in terms of actually requiring the school board to implement or or or have some discussion of the reports so that um as has been said much earlier by many members of the school board that you know it doesn't end up essentially in the dustbin of history so thank you very much for your time thank you mr dunn i just wanted to clarify something [02:02:54] that miss dixit said possible and it's mostly a question because you mentioned about if um during the regular board meetings there's no opportunity for back and forth how i've read this if they were to be invited here there would not be an opportunity for back and forth either it's just a three-minute work session and that's outside of when they come to do their presentations that we really do a huge engagement so i just wanted to make sure that there was clarity on what could be happening um yes so so basically i want to have an interim discussions with them while they are still doing [02:03:32] their uh not listen to them dead end of the year and wait for the summit so maybe like once and after like six months the chair can come in and talk to them what they're planning to do and we at least we can then give our input on that you know so just uh that's why i'm saying regular meeting is regular meeting is something we can hear them and provide some feedback so i think what you've proposed is not even what's on here it's something altogether different thank you for that clarification thank you i just wanted to take a quick turn to kind of talk about that one of the roles of the school board liaison is to provide some of that regular sort of right the [02:04:12] school board liaison is supposed to attend the meetings and so i think someone proposed having the school board liaison give a report i think it might be new miss marron during the regular meeting and that might be something to add so that were the lee so the if you're the liaison to i think APAC I believe right now so part of your role in giving that regular report to say here's what APAC discussed here's what's going on with APAC so that may be a way to do that I'm not opposed to even having some process where they you know they give us some sort of interim feedback maybe at a regular meeting but just there is something built in for that it's just more on the board member to do that right now um so that's the only thing I wanted to kind of mention to that to think about which would be which is which do we want to do do you want to stick with the board member giving [02:04:51] feedback or do you want to add something more and I don't have a strong opinion on that right now So, did you want to take your turn? Yeah. Okay, Mr. Moore? Quickly commenting upon that, you'll probably remember receiving an email from my step A the last week about what the HRAC discussed at the last meeting, and that's the kind of format that I'll be following at least until the end of this year, because, you know, if there are 12 advisory committees, if they have monthly meetings, and if board members [02:05:24] report out two minutes at the board meeting that's 24 minutes so it's adding to your meeting evening so just think about that and some board members could go beyond two minutes so yeah I was just about to say that's a great topic for the retreat to figure out that process of reporting out I think we could talk about that processes for the retreat so just it's a little after 12 and I think I don't see anyone else who wants mistakes that did you want to speak anymore or you anyone else wants to speak great conversations and thoughts on this topic thank you all i know it's a lot [02:06:01] to kind of throw out you as a new board so in terms of next steps there's a next steps document for this um if you want to post any suggestions you have for additions or changes um any of those will come back to the public engagement committee to incorporate comments and feedback that from the next steps document that have seven support votes and then we'll circulate and i should let the committee chair speaks are you sure this is a weird handoff because we're handing off the chairmanship here. So if I may. So the next step is our committee chair will take it back to PEC and then circulate a new draft out for the board that will eventually, once we [02:06:38] sort of incorporate all of the comments and get feedback, we'll be coming for a board vote whenever the chair schedules it for the board vote, with the idea being it's done in time to be able to make sure our committee chairs and members know what's coming and the changes and then hopefully implement it for the next year. But the next step is to and take it back to PEC to incorporate all of the suggestions that come through next steps. [02:07:00] And do you wanna add anything to that, Ms. Anderson? I look forward to your leadership on that. Oh, also we'll have change, changing the title. So thank you all for your great time and comments. Did you wanna make any closing statements? I think we'll break for lunch now. [02:07:15] It is 12:07, according to my computer. So maybe 12:45, give us a little time for lunch. Does that work for everybody? Thank you everybody for your great thoughts [02:07:24] and comments and your work, appreciate it. [02:53:01] All right, board members. I think we're ready to get started for the afternoon part of our work session. So thank you all for joining us. I know we've got a lot on our plate today. So thank you for the good conversation this morning. We're going to be switching to the second topic on the agenda, which is the executive expectations process as well as the executive expectations versus limitations language. [02:53:22] And this comes -- I sent a memo to you all last night. I apologize. It was a little bit later than I intended. But there's a memo that kind of gives the background to what this conversation is as as well as sort of the decision points of the board moving forward. So this is a work session. [02:53:37] As a reminder, we don't have any vote today on any of this. This is just conversation for the next step to move the work forward. So a couple of things, this is background to sort of frame the work. We have a strategic governance manual that helps us to ensure that we're following what the state of Virginia has done, which is empower and direct school boards to manage the school system. [02:54:00] You can see on page 2 of the current governance manual what the state of Virginia empowers us to do and how the governance manual and the governance structure helps further that work. In addition, on page 4 and 5 of the current governance manual, the one that's already been adopted in place for a while, we have definitions of our mission, vision, beliefs, strategic plan, board roles and responsibilities, and superintendent. [02:54:28] And on page six, you can see that in the current governance manual and current governance structure that's been in place for a while, that the board delegates operational control of the school system to the superintendent and will hold the superintendent accountable. And it's that delegation. And then it says this manual clarifies the basis and means for holding the superintendent accountable. [02:54:47] And the conversation today relates to holding the superintendent accountable for the performance of the school system. So I want to frame it in what's in the current governance manual regarding our legal obligations as well as delegating our operational authority to the superintendent and holding her accountable. So that's the first piece of it. A little background. There was a board motion. So a little background. In 2022 to 2023, the school board reengaged with the community and the board to develop a new strategic plan, which was passed in June of 2023. Part [02:55:23] Part of that process, the board also committed to revising a governance structure to hold the superintendent accountable for achieving the goals of this strategic plan. The strategic plan has five goals in it. It also has measures that are related to each goal, and it has pillars of the things that we must do well in order to achieve the measures and the goals of the strategic plan. [02:55:46] It is the community and board's direction to the superintendent as to the goals we want to achieve for the system by 2030. As part of that, we put in a governance structure. It actually was a structure that we had seen previously in the governance manual around executive expectations for what we expect our superintendent to do to achieve the goals of the strategic plan. The process that was put in place and that's currently in place in the governance manual is a multi-step process. We have executive expectations delineated in the governance [02:56:22] manual starting on page 14. They range in topics from board succession to learning environment to financial planning, human resources. You'll see them all laid out from page 14 all the way through page, I'm just pulling up the page 29, or actually beyond that, page 33. The board spent quite a bit time in june in the fall finalizing these exec we voted in june to um put in this governance structure we looked at the governance manual and realized that we there were already operational [02:57:00] expectations that the previous board at some point had put in place in the governance manual that followed the same model um we just called them executive expectations so before we went on our recess in summer of 2023 the board directed um superintendent and the board to work to revise the operating expectations that were currently in the governance manual and had been for quite a while to be in alignment with the strategic plan we came back in the fall of 2023 and i encourage mr frisch who was vice chair at this time if there's anything i'm missing came back in the fall of 2023 and in september adopted the executive expectations that you see currently in the governance manual we also adopted a process for holding the superintendent accountable [02:57:41] this process consisted of the superintendent presenting a yearly report on each Executive expectation a monitoring report the board at the time the report was presented would vote on the report to Either state that the superintendent was in compliance was making sufficient progress towards compliance or was not in compliance and you'll see this Process you'll see some flow charts on board docs that delete this process if the board as a body gave direction To the superintendent that she was not in compliance the superintendent would have to come back with a corrective action plan to show the board how she would get into compliance with any particular executive expectation. [02:58:19] That is a process that the board voted into place that's currently in the governance manual. In addition to that, there's an individual feedback form, which is also on board docs. You can see the blank version of it that board members could, if they chose, fill out, and you have a copy of it as well, fill out to give individual feedback to the superintendent. [02:58:38] So there's two steps to this process. There's board direction through a board vote on compliance with a monitoring report or the need for a corrective action plan. And there's individual feedback that the superintendent could take into account as she moved forward with her work. The board in October of 2023 paused the use of that process and directed the governance committee to review the current process and make recommendations for the full board to consider whether to continue using that process or not. [02:59:11] The governance committee met on Thursday, January 25th. We were supposed to meet a week and a half earlier, but the snow had other intentions for us. Thank you, Ryan. Sorry, I couldn't resist. The snow had other intentions for us. We met on January 25, 2024 to discuss two items. [02:59:30] Question one was, shall the board continue using the executive expectations process as described in the board's governance manual? Let me back up. board motion in the fall of 2023 also directed that the governance committee meet and the board vote on whether to continue this process by february 8 2024 so that put a timeline on determining whether to continue using the process or not so the committee met on january 25th to discuss two items the first question was whether the board should continue to use the executive expectations process as i have just described and as described on the governance manual page 14. the governance committee discussed this recommendation for quite some time and voted to recommend that the board [03:00:09] continue to use the process as described on page 14. So in other words the governance committee recommends to the full board that we continue hearing the monitoring reports once a year that we then vote to give the superintendent direction as to whether she's in compliance make sufficient progress towards compliance or not in compliance and which I forgot to mention the next part of that process after that vote board members can if they wish fill out an individual form and after that the third step is the board would then determine whether the executive expectation as written was sufficient or needed to be revised and that's a yearly review so board would then vote [03:00:49] whether they wanted to revise that executive that particular executive expectation the governance committee recommended that the board continue with this process as described on page 14. The next, and so we'll take these one at a time, but I'll explain the rest of the governance committee meeting. [03:01:06] The next question the governance committee looked at is whether the board should continue to use executive expectations as currently written in the governance manual or change to an executive limitations process that align with the model practice of the board executive governance model. The governance committee discussed this for quite a while and voted to recommend that the board change to executive limitations and is presenting the board. [03:01:27] posted on board docs as well with the draft changes to the governance manual that contain executive limitations language so the board can see what that language would look like. In my memo, I kind of describe a little bit the governance model, some definitions of executive limitations, but I'm going to walk through the memo and then we'll chunk each of these conversations. We'll talk about the process first and then limitations versus expectations. [03:01:53] Executive limitations gives the CEO executive, i.e. in this case the superintendent, parameters in which to operate. The board tells the executive what they must not fail to do which leaves the executive operational room and creativity to take actions to operate the system and achieve the strategic plan goals and measures. Executive expectations prescribe the action the board expects the superintendent executive to take to operate the system. So one is swim lanes are if you think of the ends of the system the goals of the system what we want to achieve is a strategic [03:02:27] plan goals and measures the operational limitations expectations are the means by which those ends can be achieved and the real question is whether we want as a board to tell the superintendent which means she should use or give the superintendent swim lanes in which she can operate to achieve those goals and present us monitoring reports either way as to how she's doing in the means that she's using to achieve the goals of the strategic plan that's that conversation like limitations versus expectations. We will first start with the executive expectations process conversation just [03:03:03] to sort of chunk this conversation. So the first question we have to discuss today for a vote on February 8th per the board direction is whether the board should continue to use the executive expectations process as I've outlined and on page 14 which is report board votes compliance sufficient progress towards compliance or non-compliant. If not compliant there's the corrective action plan, individual feedback if board members decide through the form and a discussion and vote as to whether we wanted to change the executive expectation limitation. One of the [03:03:40] reasons that was put in place is to have an iterative yearly review to make sure we're still in alignment with what we want to do. So that's the first question is would we like to continue with this process or not? So I will pause there. Just to give a little bit of the lay of the land as to how I think this is going to work best moving forward. [03:03:59] As Ms. Sizemore-Haismer explained, we're going to deal with each question separately, which means we're also going to deal with the order and all the things separately. If you have direct questions for members of the board that have been here in the past when some of these discussions were happening, please ask that member, and we'll wait for an answer, and that way it'll be very clear as to how we're going to move forward. [03:04:25] So I believe that Mr. Dunn is actually going to kick things off. Well, thank you. So I have a lot of questions. I've heard good and bad things about this proposal. But, you know, I'd start with the fact that the cover memo that Ratchett provided, and I'm thanking Ms. Seismar Heiser for providing that, refers to a board executive governance model. [03:04:54] And that refers to the policy governance model developed by John Carver in the 1970s. And the fundamental concern is that this is unlawful, per my email to the board and requesting a formal legal written opinion from division counsel to confirm that if we do adopt the policy governance model developed by John Carver, his book was distributed to the left board, and I've read that, that it would cause us to violate our collective and individual [03:05:26] legal obligations and fiduciary duties as prescribed by Virginia law. That's the first issue I see. The second is that even though this model was developed in the 1970s, I've been unable to find any data at all that's showing that it makes organizations better, more efficient, or other positive qualities. For something that's been around for 50 years, there should be more than anecdotal data, and I think it's an extreme change that we need to [03:06:00] carefully consider. Second bucket is converting expectations to limitations. The primary justification in advance in the memo is that the expectations limit operational judgment and creativity but um i don't i don't see that in practice i mean the superintendent has done many things like uh implement the pilot program uh and other things that were done without consulting with the board in advance so she does seem to have a significant operational judgment and creativity [03:06:36] and so i'm not quite sure um what you know if if it ain't broke don't fix it and so i don't see what's broken. And the final bucket, language shall not fail. As an attorney, I'm concerned that for us to make a finding that the superintendent has failed in some fundamental way, because that's what the language isn't changing. We're just converting expectations, limitations, everything else stays the same, except we're making it a negative, saying the superintendent shall not failed to blah blah blah um but if but if we make an affirmative finding that the superintendent has [03:07:12] failed in a particular respect um that will potentially increase um fcps's liability um and the school board's liability legally because uh there will be an affirmative finding that plaintiffs could assert a cause of action saying that you know we failed to provide you know meet the requirements of virginia law both the constitution and law so i have concerns about the legal risks in that regard and i also think it's impossible to find that someone failed um because when you see a complete failure it's usually in the shades of gray so um all in all you know i'm open to the proposed change but i have a lot of questions that i'd like to get answers [03:07:52] to thank you okay mr dunn we'll go we'll we'll separate the two so we're going to move forward with just just discussing question number one as as i said before um and then we'll discuss question number two after we come to some sort of way forward with question number one so um dr anderson i want to make sure that i stick to it okay thank you um the executive expectations [03:08:27] should we continue to use that um the process not the expectations themselves just the process the process of um having the reports the process of voting on the reports and the process of giving the feedback on the forms um i do want to separate those three things because i think they all mean different things at least to me the process of being provided with the presentations and having the discussions i think are paramount i i've appreciated that insight in terms of the formative data that it provides into the system because prior to this we would get the goal reports at [03:09:04] the end and it's kind of the sols it's too late we kind of need these you know formatives this is like like the vga this is just your end of unit assessments so i'm a big fan of that and i want that to continue very very very much the process of voting on to it i i don't think i have had clarity on that at all because what does that mean not just does the executive expectations as it stands whether it meets criteria or not i could deal with that it's what does that mean in [03:09:38] terms of the superintendent's evaluation. I would need those dots to be connected and to have clarity because I don't have that right now. And thirdly, is Mr. Foster here? I know in governance it was raised in terms of the documents being provided, and he said he would give a memo. Did I miss a memo from him? Oh, he just sent it this morning while we were here, so I don't know what it says. [03:10:05] Is he here? Okay, then I will wait because I want to make sure I look at the memo, but I did have some questions there that i wanted to have some answers to um i i have a lot that i want to share but i want to wait until we get to those other parts of the um of the conversation but in terms of the three components that is that i believe compose this question i am all in for the regular reports i have more questions regarding the voting and i definitely have more questions regarding the [03:10:39] form so i'll pause there for right now i can forward the memo i'll just cc john to make sure he's still on there uh mr mckelvie i thought he sent it to everybody thank you since we're starting with this first question on page 14 i just have a very simple question um to begin with which is um when was page 14 uh formally voted on and adopted by the full school board [03:11:17] i don't know if the clerk has dates or recorded votes or whether this was approved on a consent agenda but my understanding is that this was never in fact improved by the school board it was in september 2023 okay well we can we can wait for the clerk to find that but um i object to the language that's being used here that this would be continuance of current board practice because i [03:11:51] don't believe it's actually been adopted as board practice thanks there was a vote on september 14th 2023 on executive expectations it had a um attachment to it that referred to um various things i think my page 14 and your page 14 are slightly different so that's what i'm pulling up um it's on page 15 of the document on the september 14th 2023 vote that was adopted [03:12:30] thank you and it does lay out what i believe had been read earlier and how was this adopted it was adopted as an action action vote at a school board meeting yes the motion was brought by ms pekarski and it was seconded by ms mayor and it carried okay thank you mr frisch thank you [03:13:05] mr mckelveen i think elevating how we got here is a good a good place to start the conversation and i'm happy to send the link around it does show that the board voted unanimously on this change. And then we used it, I think, two or three times before pausing it. So here's how I see it. [03:13:26] If I were an employee in a company and I had 12 bosses who all wanted to give me individualized instruction on what my job is and what success looks like, I would quit because that's no way to run a company. And, you know, when push comes to shove, a good management structure is when, If there is a board, the board speaks with one voice in the direction of its charge. [03:13:58] And so what I think this process attempts to do is to provide structure for that work. We get the presentation, and we can debate what's in the presentation, what's not in the presentation, et cetera, but we get a presentation based on all of these different pieces of the work that we do as board members and as a system, and then we decide whether things are going in the direction that our expectations direct them to. [03:14:22] we agree that things are going in that direction in that moment in time we are saying at this moment in time that we are in compliance with these expectations or we say we're not in this specific piece let's say expect expectation two number four this needs work please come back and the superintendent is then required to write a corrective action memo by the next school board meeting explaining how they are going to get things in shape that's a critical feature that we have not been practicing right now because it allows for board-directed, continuous improvement throughout the year. [03:15:01] For whatever reason, in the four years that I've been on the board, the way that we've gotten that type of formalized corrective measures is through the annual review process, which is done once at the end of the year, and typically we're given a giant packet of information from the superintendent's office, a form from the chair and the vice chair, and asked to make sense of it all, and then we have a group conversation, et cetera. [03:15:24] that it is too much to handle all at once. And so after the refining happens, after the new work is done, we're given an opportunity to provide that individualized feedback in the form of the voluntary form. [03:15:40] And then we work on adjusting the policy as needed. In other words, do we need to change any of these expectations? That sounds like a very efficient way of making sure we're doing the right thing at any given time. And at the end of the year, what am I left with when it comes to the evaluation? [03:15:56] I'm left with all of these benchmarks throughout the year that are snapshots in time at that moment of the work that's being done today. Give you an example. If one of the expectations is that we're gonna make progress on the Joint Environmental Task Force goals is presented, and at that time when it's presented, let's say that we've picked up a bunch of new buses and we've got solar on a bunch of our schools, and in that moment it feels like we are making progress and that we're in alignment. [03:16:20] Well, eight months later, when we're doing the superintendent's review, That may no longer be the case. I am free to use this information that we've taken over time to inform the review process for myself. And we're not skipping out on the opportunity to refocus the work throughout the year as one collective voice. [03:16:40] I think where we do poorly as a system is when board members work back channels to get what they want and cut the board out of the process, leaving the superintendent in a position of difficulty. How do I maintain my relationship with this board member versus the entire board. [03:16:57] Because as statute and in our governance manual, it says that they are responsive to the will of the board, not the individual board member. And so doing it this way requires us to work more closely together so that we are in alignment in directing the superintendent's work. [03:17:13] I think that's all good. And it only speaks to, you know, I've gone way over time again. I need to keep an eye on that timer. I apologize. I'll take a go back. - This is Jackson. So as a new board member and new to the process, I'm actually thinking it from a corporate or business lens and trying to figure this out. [03:17:37] How would it work in a business environment if we had 12 bosses or things like that? So in my opinion, I agree with Mr. Frisch that we have to give that swim lane to the superintendent. It's like the CEO, you would say, in a private sector who has to direct, manage, and provide the staff and also give the feedback to the board, where I would say that we should have smart goals or benchmarks, and instead of like, yeah, we can write the language, which is obviously acceptable by the board, [03:18:17] but it should be very specific, measurable, achievable, you know, with the time-oriented. So if that is how we could do it, instead of writing a very descriptive language, which is, we don't know how to then measure it, just like Mr. Dunn said, that's going to be very hard, but definitely there has to be a swim lane and room of creativity and innovation. [03:18:47] Everything has to be, has to happen, and that superintendent can do it if she has a little bit of a freedom to do so. Thank you. - Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and take my turn 'cause I don't see any other. - I'm sorry. - Oh, do you, you go first. [03:19:03] - Okay. I agree with Mr. Fresh and Ms. Dixit. I believe that our strategic plan does provide those SMART goals and measurements that we need in order to move forward. And what I like about the process that's outlined currently in the governance manual is that it gives us, It actually reinforces the review process that happens at the end of the year because it gives us the opportunity to have a snapshot view at those points in time where we understand what the will of the board was at that moment so that we can go back and a lot happens in a year. [03:19:40] so we can go back and look at those snapshot reports and we can kind of understand who voted which way and so if you've changed your mind about how something went you know who you can go back and talk to about what they were thinking at the time it gives us data points as a board to be able to do our jobs and so i like the idea of not only giving feedback to our superintendent about how we feel as a as one unit how about how things are going and direction related to that that consensus i think that it is essential to our success in order to to be able to actually have those those [03:20:17] votes um whether or not the feedback form and whatever mechanism we use to give that feedback however we want to do it i'm not as worried about that portion of it i think that we should go ahead and try it the way that the the previous board voted unanimously um i think we should move forward with that and then see how things go this lady um yeah i'm gonna echo uh my colleagues ms dixit mr frisch and ms anderson um i mean i just you know as someone who you know had to supervise a [03:20:54] number of people i believe in in um ongoing timely feedback um it's you know i was a coach of five or six different sports you don't wait till the end of the season to to tactically correct things or grow people so um you know i have a strong feeling uh also coming off of being on the nakak board um where we did it differently where we waited until the end of the year to do an evaluation of our ceo um but it was such a laborious task in trying to find time to meet all those deadlines [03:21:28] and do those those reviews uh and and our ceos feedback to us after that was wow i wish i had gotten some of this feedback earlier because then i could have engaged in some you know corrective behavior if you will um so anyways i fully support uh the idea of the ongoing presentations and then timely feedback upon those presentations and you know a vote of confidence if you will or a feedback around what we think is you know maybe not being done with the fidelity or you know at [03:22:00] the standard we wanted to be done to be communicated at that point thank you um i think it was oh mr mcdaniel thank you quick point of order um we have two questions that we're kind of tackling um are we getting three minutes per question oh okay all right all right okay all right thank you um i see that council's in the room can we get a can we get the follow-up to the question um so the question the question mr mateo done first of all i want to we may need to do that in a closed [03:22:39] session so i want to but the question about the the form that question we can get answered in terms of yeah so um mr foster and you sent a memo about the use of the form if you could um and it came up in governance if you could give just a brief summary as to whether the use of the form is um i think the question really isn't whether we can use the form the question is whether the form is he made public as we use it yeah i want to respect the attorney client privilege and not take a deep dive on that memo you it looked it looks like that was um you all should have that [03:23:11] now um and you can read that uh as uh your time permits um i will say in a summary way that my conclusion is that any individual feedback form completed by a board member during a public meeting at which the executive expectation report is presented and questions are asked of the superintendent that that individual form would need to be produced in response to a FOIA request and the reasons for that conclusion are outlined in the in the memorandum okay thank you so to [03:23:50] clarify well I'll we can chat offline so just very briefly I'm a yes on question why the processes as outlined is so is fine with me the I agree with everything's been said in terms of a rolling you know rolling feedback the superintendent you know having 12 having I I have no bosses and that's hard enough I couldn't imagine having 12 bosses so it does need there does need to be a vote on this stuff. I fundamentally believe that. And that does not mean that individual board members cannot give feedback. There is a feedback form, positive or negative [03:24:27] feedback. It can go in there. And I think from a public transparency perspective, having a vote on these on an ongoing basis is really important from the public who may be interested in knowing how our superintendent is doing in the school system. So I'm okay with question number one. [03:24:46] Mr. Moon? Could you repeat the question number one again so that I can just answer that one? The question number one is whether to resume using the process as outlined on, in the red line document that's posted on board docs is page 14, on the current governance manual attached to the September 14th vote is page 15, but using the red line document, which has the same process that we were voted on September 14th, whether we should resume using that process. [03:25:18] And again, the process is that the superintendent presents the report on the executive expectation. The board as a body takes a vote as to whether she's in compliance, sufficient progress towards the compliance, and you can see a draft of the form or not in compliance. [03:25:36] And if we vote not in compliance, she has to present a corrective action plan. Individual board members may, if they choose, give individual feedback on a form. And then we, as a board, can decide whether we want to revise that executive expectation or not. [03:25:52] That's the process. I am trying to find a well-lined version of the manual for page 14. It's on board docs attached to today's work session. And I also was looking at this clean copy. And clean copy does not mention about any forms. [03:26:11] At least one that I have. I think you're looking at the original. I think you're looking at the original. I am looking at the original one. That's the current government form. Go to board docs. There are three versions of each. Okay, I guess my question is, the... [03:26:37] I can read it to you if you like. A clean copy. A clean copy. It says... Go ahead. Could you let me? The clean copy that I have is from October 26, 2023. That's the last time the governance manual was revised, correct? [03:26:59] October 26, 2023? No, that's when that document was last updated as part of the work, right? October 26th was when the process was paused. The September 14th is when it was adopted. September 14th, 2023 was when it was adopted. [03:27:18] October 26th, it was paused. Okay. Okay, because I'm only looking at, you know, what I have as a clean copy. This was, yeah, yeah. - So because somehow what I have, I thought was a clean copy, the latest one, did not have any optional feedback form. [03:27:43] - Hang on, let me just pull it up 'cause the latest one is, let's see. [03:28:07] - Mr. Moon, are you looking for the clean version or are you looking for the marked up version? Just so I understand what. - I am looking for the latest form adopted by the board. - The form is the one that-- No, no, no, I'm sorry. [03:28:23] Page 14 of the governance manual. Oh, the latest adopted? Adopted by the board because that's the latest adopted process. I believe it's in the library on board docs. And that's not that one, right? That is something being proposed or something being given to us for consideration. [03:28:43] So, okay. All right. So, the board's direction to governance committee was to review the process and suggest a process going forward to the new board when we are constituted with action to be taken by February 8th. We've established that. Hang on a second, I'm answering his question. [03:29:06] As part of that work, the language that you see in front of you right there adds a sentence about the form. Additionally, in the memo that Ms. Sizemore-Heiser sent around, it indicates that we would add the form, which is also attached to board docs, to the governance manual as well. [03:29:26] to clarify the process that was paused was the voting right you can see on on october 26 there was originally a motion to not vote that motion was pulled and instead the motion that passed was a process to pause the voting we added language on the form to make it clear that because the form was being used as well at that time at the time so the governance just the governance committee recommended we added that language as well as that explains why i don't see on the most recently adopted governance manual does not say anything about the phone but that was being used by the [03:30:02] prior board when there was paused yeah this was the recommendation coming out of the governance committee's red line okay pause was on the process of voting okay okay uh i you know at the at the governance committee meeting uh i did not support you know voting uh in the same way continuing to vote in the same way that the prior board voted until they paused the process because even though [03:30:36] even though a superintendents report to the board may be posted you know week or two weeks in advance of the board's discussion i want to give myself as one board member enough time before i actually vote on whether superintendent is in compliance or not in compliance because I need to hear from other board members at the board table, the public meeting, and give myself some time [03:31:11] to think about it before giving a really meaningful feedback, meaning voting whether someone is in compliance, someone needs to take a corrective action, someone is just flatly out of compliance. That was the hesitation on my part, to do that at the same meeting that the report is being given to us, presented to us in public, and discussed for the first time. And then, form-wise, I think I raised some questions about, you know, what the superintendent [03:31:47] is going to be doing, whatever the feedback we provide on the forms, because that is not really being shared with other board members unless they are FOIA'd. So I do not know how many board members might have given certain feedback through the form to superintendents and superintendents are adopting those or superintendents will be just picking and choosing [03:32:13] for her own liking. That's what I have for now. Ms. Marin? Yes, I support question one. My response remains the same as it has through the entire process of developing this. I encourage the board to try this process to trust the process and to honor the work that's been done by prior board and uh to move forward and uh get on with this work thank you i don't see anyone [03:32:50] else for go backs no i'm sorry anyone else before go back right yeah so did you want to speak before i speak no okay so i'll take my turn before we go to go backs um i support this this voting and i I will share a couple things. One, it's, as many people mentioned, very difficult to have 12 bosses, right? But the reality is Dr. Reed has one boss, and that's the board as a body. It's up to us as the board as a body to figure out how to give her feedback to the board as a body, because otherwise it's unfair to her to get 12 individual feedback and then expect her to know which [03:33:25] direction that she should take, whether she's in compliance, right? That's on our job to do that. So that's what this process does. It gives her feedback in real time, you know, and the end of the day, you know, here's how I look at it is, is my goal here is to set to make sure that our system is successful. So our kids are successful. That's my goal. And I think that's everybody's goal here. And if we give her direction from her boss, the board as a body along the way, and give her a chance to course correct, that will help better set up our system for success. [03:33:58] Because if we get to the end of the year without Dr. Reed really knowing that, hey, this is not on the right track, it's that much longer that it's going to take for her to fix it, maybe that much harder to fix it because we've been going maybe the wrong direction for months. So as I manage people, I do regular check-ins. [03:34:14] Hey, you're on track. You want to adjust this. You want to adjust that. And that's what I look at this process as. We still have the summative evaluation at the end of the year, so if something changes between this vote and then there's space to consider that. But to me a good way to function a system is to provide regular feedback to your employee to say Are you on track and then give them a chance to fix it if they're not? [03:34:34] That will keep the system going the right direction and that's what this does It's difficult when there's 12 of us because then also individually We have a chance to give her feedback on things that we may particularly raise up or see that she can do with what she wants And I think she'll take that feedback very much to heart knowing dr. Reed But the direction comes from the board as a body and that's clear to her the other piece that You know, I wanted to mention, I know you mentioned having enough time to give meaningful feedback, right, in the forums. [03:35:00] It came up in governance, and these reports will be sent to us, I believe, a week or two in advance. So it gives us time to talk to each other, as we do on many other things, to kind of hear each other's thoughts. One thing we mentioned in governance that we could do as a process going forward, and it's not necessarily a vote in the governance manual, but we talked about whether we put the dates on a website. [03:35:18] In the same way we have the budget dates, or we have the CIP, we have a strategic plan date. So maybe we put those dates, these are when these reports are coming, so that way the public knows that they're coming as well. And we've also talked about that we as a board could decide if we want to make those feedback forms available, posted, working with our superintendent, or FOIABLE. [03:35:34] So there's ways we can address that part of it. But I think getting these reports a week or two ahead of time for us to read, so we're not, the first time we're getting them isn't the day of the dais of the vote, like many other things. I know our goal one report came Tuesday, and we voted out on Thursday, so, and I would not recommend that. [03:35:51] They're having two weeks for us to read the report, talk to each other, hear each other's thoughts, share with each other at the dais, and then do the vote. I think it's very fair and a way to keep our superintendent on the track that we think she needs to be on and lets our superintendent take the course correction so that way our system can move forward in the best way possible so our kids can succeed and our staff can succeed. [03:36:11] That's why I like this process. Dr. Anderson. One of the things that I wanted to offer some clarity to is what was voted upon on the 14th. [03:36:26] And if you look at that board docs, it reads as the following, Mr. Moon, the school board created the strategic plan and portrait of a graduate characteristics to ensure that the FCPS, if I could just have a pause while I read this, because I don't think this should count for my time. But nobody else has had pauses while they're reading pieces from the documents. [03:36:43] I'm just lifting what was in this document for the edification of this conversation. The school board created the strategic plan and portrait of a graduate characteristics to ensure that the FCPS community, staff, and students are united behind the work that must take place to ensure the division's success. [03:37:03] That success is operational excellence in the superintendents operating the division within the expectations expressed by the board through executive expectations. Superintendent will provide an annual report to the board on each of the executive expectations at a regular board meeting. [03:37:20] THE BOARD WILL VOTE ON EACH OF THE MONITORING REPORTS PRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT. IF THE BOARD FIND THE SUPERINTENDENT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ONE OF THESE EXECUTIVE EXPECTATIONS, THE SUPERINTENDENT WILL PRESENT A CORRECTIVE ACTION TO THE BOARD AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. THE BOARD WILL REVIEW EACH EXECUTIVE EXPECTATION ANNUALLY AT THE TIME OF THE MONITORING REPORT IS PRESENTED FOR ANY REVISIONS. [03:37:41] THE BOARD MAY ALSO REVISE AN EXECUTIVE EXPECTATION AT ANY TIME TO UPDATE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT MOVING FORWARD. forward there's nothing here that spoke to a form when we voted in september 14th i just want to make sure that that is clear that came later at a work session on the 26th and the issue that was presented at that time is the board did not have an opportunity to even have input on what the form looked like so whether or not we do the form that is not what was voted upon then and what i wanted to say as well is um and i appreciate rashna that you said the language to resume rather than [03:38:18] continue because as the board voted unanimously to support what i read the board also voted unanimously to suspend the practice so i want that to not be lost in the sauce here one of the things that i would like to have clarified and stated in this document is what would be the goal the purpose and the plan of the votes what does that mean because absent it being very clear in the documents minds wonder if it's a moment in time snapshot we need to articulate that if it's a foundation rather than the sole source of information for the evaluation [03:38:57] we also need to clarify that so um and the other thing just speaking to the form one of the things that dr reed mentioned even at the governance manual is that in her former district her entire evaluation was public. And if we're trying to be transparent with our community, why can't our feedback also be public? I don't see that as a waiver of any kind of FOIA because, well, anybody could FOIA. I'm sure there'll be some people who sit there and just wait for that meeting to be over and then they'll FOIA the feedback that we're giving. It shouldn't be a secret. And I would love to hear what my colleagues are saying because there's a synergy in sharing information that we [03:39:37] will not be able to have without that information being shared amongst us. And I see that's my time. Can we have like some sort of dinger? I don't want to keep going over. Thank you very much. Mr. McIlvain. Thanks, Ms. Anderson. So, you know, there are eight people around the table who weren't here for this original conversation. And the information, it's important that all the information be reflected to the new people whether it's through documents that are sent to us through email or in conversation so I'm grateful that the [03:40:13] clerk clarified that the 14th the vote on September 14th was unanimous but as Dr. Frisch or as Mr. Frisch said that it's the process was paused after that was put forward and that was not conveyed to us in advance of this meeting we were told that we were asked the question if we wanted to continue board practice and this is not indeed continuing it would be a resumption of a former process so I want to make that clear as Dr. Anderson has already mentioned the 14th vote did not entail voting on these things by a form I just [03:40:52] want to emphasize the fact that we are a new board this is our first time seeing this and I'm very disappointed that we're it's being brought in this this format to us where we have not even had an opportunity to have a retreat as a group. Me and my seven other new colleagues have not had a chance to talk to each other or the continuing board members and to even figure out how we want to operate together before being asked to make a decision on a massive change to this system. So I'm very disappointed and I think the only fair thing to do would be to delay this decision until after we have had a [03:41:29] chance to come together as a board at a retreat and at least have more than a month's worth of time working with each other do you mind if i speak to one part of that really fast um there is a deadline put by the previous board by february 8th so we are under the the reason that we're doing this now is that we need to move forward and so that it we are responding to the to the work that was done by the previous board to actually move forward in the in the process and some of this was explained in our orientation which i i understand that you could be at all all of the days so there is there some of us have had prior knowledge about what was happening [03:42:06] okay well i'll just re-emphasize this isn't my first time hearing about this process and it's very very disappointing and i think this sets us up very poorly for two weekends of retreat where we should be focusing on what we want to achieve as a board not being ham hamstringed by this this process that is being foisted on us february 8th i'm sorry if the board said the prior board set a deadline we should be able to set our own deadline as a new board mr. Frisch thank you [03:42:42] question for superintendent reed really quickly in your view of a process that has been articulated here and that we were previously using is there anything in a vote to say that you're in compliance on any given expectation that would preclude a board member from having a different opinion at the time of your annual review no sir even if they voted that you were in compliance six months earlier board member would be able to do as they would so if if this board voted that you were in [03:43:18] compliance of everything throughout the year until your annual review it would still be able to remove you from the position if it saw fit yes sir all right um as to the question about how much time we have with each of these expectation reports um i think miss sizemore heiser indicated that we We have almost two weeks of 10 days that we're getting these in advance. [03:43:39] And I'm using that as an opportunity to dig in and see where I think things are compliant or not compliant. And I don't think that the previous board's request for February 8th was a date pulled out of nowhere. [03:43:58] I think it was an acknowledgement of the importance of having a definitive answer on how this work proceeds. and as I articulated in my original round of comments, there's nothing more important than having a mechanism of continuous feedback. [03:44:14] So I will support the first question. - Ms. Dixit. - So I'm looking at the form, thank you for the time, but I'm looking at the form and then I also heard Ms. Aizmoharza said that we're gonna give a feedback as a board, but then the form says that you have, you put your individual feedback. [03:44:40] So I'm a little confused about that. - Yeah, the idea was that the, it's direction versus feedback, right? So the board vote is direction, right? It's the board saying, we're your boss, we're telling you you're in compliance or you're not in compliance, right? [03:44:58] However, you know, the board as a body is made up of 12 individuals, right? And there may be value and feedback from individuals of, hey, I know the board voted in compliance, but I wish you had seen these things, right? So the board vote is, you must do this, Dr. Reed, or you're in compliance, Dr. Reed, keep on, keep on. [03:45:16] And that she knows which direction to move. However, you know, we also work closely with Dr. Reed, and we're constantly providing feedback on many things, right? So it's valuable to her to also know, all right, the board told me I'm in compliance, but this particular issue is important to Mr. Frisch. Let me have a conversation with him to better understand it. [03:45:33] But then she can do with that what she wants, because it's not being directed to do something. It's just feedback. So we wanted to be able to have a process where we gave clear accountability structure and feedback from the board as a body, but left some room for optional information from board members, shall you say, that she could do with what she thought best in her operational judgment. [03:45:53] So one is, you must do this or you're good, keep going. And one is, here's some more information or thoughts that you can do with what you will. Does that help? It does help, but it's not an official record. It's just a feedback form, this form, the individual form. [03:46:09] So why is that could be just simply emailing the superintendent, by the way, this is what we feel you're not in compliance with, instead of like this form. This form is just an example of how to provide feedback? It's optional. It was just a form that we had it as something that's optional for people to do. [03:46:28] If they don't want to do it and send a email, they could do that too. Okay, so people who are saying they've never seen this form before, again, this is because it was just created recently? it was published as part of the um vote in september so it was created at a work session excuse me after the vote in september the form was created so the form has been around since september um and it was used by board members if they wanted to it was not mandated to be used in the fall so it was not seen before september but it has been seen since then so it's technically not a new form but uh okay so um while it is just an optional form it's a good form and i would say [03:47:05] that anything to provide feedback and is is good it could be I guess verbal written email this form like it's just a feedback form right okay thank you Miss Marion relating to the earlier conversation about how we approach the work I'm hearing I'm hearing thoughts that seem to indicate that some members think that work only happens when we're at the board table and you know these [03:47:39] materials are available before meetings i welcome anyone to return my requests to talk with them individually who's been on the board that i haven't had that opportunity to have extended that invitation to everyone because working together is the point overall and this system helps us work together and we cannot do work and we certainly can't do it at any kind of reasonable pace if it only happens when we all are together at a meeting i think it's noteworthy that i've heard in some conversations a mantra of honor the past board's work that is attention with the conversation I'm [03:48:16] hearing today in some regards about this board needs to discuss it and that is why the prior board presented it and the board has discussed it through committee and again I raise similar to a comment I raised last week are we going to trust the work of committees and if we're not what is the individual responsibility to find that comfort level rather than waiting for being at the full board table to do so the CEO of this three billion dollar organization is saying actually she's asking in her professional opinion and judgment and experience to use this approach which the board has personalized the forum has [03:48:51] been out there for months I have not seen any comments given to me suggesting how it should be different I don't know what people are waiting for if they have comments we've had a governance meeting we've had today's work session we've had retreats last year about this process we've had regular meeting conversations we have a hundred and eighty thousand students and forty five thousand staff waiting for us if there are problems I really do ask school board members to be very explicit in what it is that the problem is and can you propose specific language or specific action so we can move forward thank you Mr. Dunn. [03:49:33] Thank you. Can you remind me, please, Ms. Anderson, what is the first question you're addressing? Because I don't see the questions listed on an agenda on board docs. [03:49:50] Ask him to unmute. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. He does not appear to be muted. We're not sure if he's frozen. [03:50:08] Mr. Dunn, are you available? Yes, can you hear me? [03:50:22] Okay. Mr. McDaniel, we'll pick him back up. Thank you. I wanted to reiterate and I guess raise some of the conversation that occurred during the governance committee. I brought it, I voted to bring it forward because I felt like a board discussion of this. [03:50:44] Some of the issues that Mr. Moon spoke about I also echoed during that meeting. I understand that we get the documents in advance. My concern about the mechanics, and I do believe it's a mechanical, logistical, operational concern, is that if the document the the expectation is presented the report is presented at a board meeting and at that same board meeting the vote is anticipated it could look like we're just seeing it for the first time then that was my concern I think we can work with that I don't see that as an issue [03:51:20] to not say yes to this question and maybe I will put some language in next steps to that effect so the first comment and the second comment is is something Dr. Anderson raised I would support if a board member fills this form out I would support that it I know if I fill it out I'm going to send it to all of my colleagues as a courtesy and I would go so far you know pending the FOIA question I would go so far as to say that all of these forms when they are filled out and submitted need to be posted online and I know that I've had conversations with the superintendent and she has said unequivocally without a shadow [03:52:00] of a doubt that she is okay with that. Am I misquoting you at all? - No, sir. - Okay, so I do believe that my concerns that my, let me rephrase that, my feedback to this process has been in the interest of transparency. [03:52:17] And I think with those two items specifically addressed, the timing of the vote, as well as the forms being made publicly available, not through someone having to submit a FOIA, but affirmatively put out there, this process is fine with me, thank you. [03:52:39] - Mr. Dunn. - Can you hear me now? I wanted to ask if you could please repeat what the first question is, because I don't have an agenda with the list of the questions that you're considering. [03:52:57] - So Mr. Dunn, there was a memo sent last night that lists the question, but I'll repeat it again for you. The first question is whether we should resume using the process as recommended by governance as listed on page 14 of the red line governance manual that's attached to the work session on board docs the process was voted in by the board on september 14 2023 the governance manual was also added the governance committee added the compliance vote form using the form and the previous board paused the use of the vote in [03:53:36] october 2023 and directed this board to pick up this question for a vote by february 8th so the question for us number one is should we continue to use the executive expectations process as described on the red line version of the governance manual on page 14 that's attached to this work session so do we resume this process that was paused and deferred to this board so if you look [03:54:07] at the um uh strategic governance panel on uh board docs the red blinds change it from uh expectations to limitations that's the second question the first question is just page 14 the process of voting the second question which we'll get to when we wrap up this conversation is the limitations versus expectations so that's if you want to just pause that question till we get to that pause we get to the next part of the conversation mr dunn we'll talk about that this is just voting that actually the vote today. The question we're discussing is just using the process on page 14. The vote for [03:54:43] that will be on February 8th. Okay, well, I'd like to ask Dr. Reed then if the question is whether we should continue using executive expectations. My understanding is that she believes that the executive expectations leads her, quote-unquote, operational judgment and creativity. So I'd like to understand, practically speaking, the limitation she has found on her executive authority from this executive expectation process. [03:55:19] - Sorry, is this question one or two? - This is question number two. So again, Mr. Dunn, if you don't mind, we can pause that answer from Dr. Reed unless she wants to answer it now till we get to the discussion of question number two. - I think I would prefer to answer it. - I'm not asking about question two. [03:55:35] I'm not asking about executive limitations. I would phrase the question very differently. my understand if we're considering should we continue the executive expectations process then i would like to understand dr reed's view of the current executive expectations process and whether it impinges her executive authority in terms of operational judgment and creativity dr reed thank you mr dunn the current process um is a process where the board has expectations for [03:56:09] what needs to be covered in a variety of areas there's no direction as a result of those presentations but i do think that without i think we discussed this a little bit in the governance committee i think that the executive expectations as they currently are written um are really again the means by which the board is directing the ceo to achieve the ends which are the goals in the [03:56:38] strategic plan they're very prescriptive and as written we will meet those I'd like to ask Dr. Reed if she could elaborate on what she means by prescriptive given that the language is is is fairly high level and that language will um yeah that's that's my question given that they're very high level how do you consider them to be prescriptive so I'll just use an example I think [03:57:14] I think the one we used in the governance committee, which was financial planning, executive expectation five, and one of the areas that states the superintendent shall in underneath two, 2.2B, it says provide the board with multi-year plan that considers the needs of schools and departments. [03:57:36] It's very prescriptive. It would state that we should include the needs of schools and departments. I think you could choose to write a, you could choose to write it differently. I don't want to wander into question two, but if it was written with shall not fail to provide a multi-year plan that considers the needs of, that considers the needs of constituencies or does not fail to consider those, then that provides a wider lane from which we could be thoughtful about which needs needed to be considered in this case i would need to bring back evidence that showed we [03:58:13] considered the needs of schools and departments and perhaps there are other needs that we might want to consider in thinking about financial planning so that's an example of what's prescriptive and as it's clear of course we'll attend to that staff will make sure we do exactly what the board has directed in that area okay um i i appreciate the explanation i guess i don't read that language to say shall only consider the needs of schools and departments at states who should be included, [03:58:51] but it doesn't preclude you necessarily from considering other constituencies, as you mentioned, but do you read it strictly as shall only consider schools and departments and that specifically excludes you from considering other issues as well? [03:59:08] I was explaining why it is prescriptive language. Right, and I was just trying to clarify your interpretation of it being prescriptive. Thank you. [03:59:24] Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and take my turn and then rush it and -- okay, so I really despise conversations when we're talking about somebody who's standing right here. So I would love if you wouldn't mind sharing what your thought is about the process and whether or not you support -- and whether or not this would be helpful to you in your day-to-day workings to have feedback and direction from the board i think it's critical that i get not only feedback but feedback and direction from the board as a body [03:59:59] we have a significant number of staff in this division and in particular the senior leadership staff as well as staff across every department school and genre who want to do a world-class job for this community and we're going to do a world-class job when we're all rowing in the same direction it is not you know a boat where you have everybody rowing in a different direction goes in circles and soon sinks we do not want to be that boat we want to be one where everyone understands the goal and we talked about those arrows lining up in one direction it's more efficient for resource [04:00:34] allocation it's absolutely going to garner stronger results for our students which is why we exist and benefit our community at the end if we're all moving in the same direction. So having a process that has formative feedback is critical. I think Miss Lady's example of a coach coach situation I mean I think we see some teams right now getting new coaches who perhaps waited too long to do some course correction and I think that's critical. You don't want to wait an entire season to find out you could have adjusted something after the second game and had a very [04:01:11] different outcome. So I think that formative feedback and not random but very direct as a body like I can not guess based on comments is the whole board sort of thinking we're on the right track but we actually have some vote that we can say yep the board as a body has said we are on the right track. I can go back to senior leadership and say all right guys here's where we are we're on track with this or you know what we missed the mark and here are the comments that I received and we need to come back at the next meeting with a corrective action memo not at the end of the year [04:01:45] but at the next meeting so that we can get things squared away sooner than later so i think it's a it's critically important to have a process that's clearly understood that's transparent and functionally accountable and as we think about question two again i just want to remind folks that this process has ends which are the goals and then the means to achieve that and And that's what these executive expectations are, are the ways in which I am going to work with staff to achieve the goals that the board expects to have achieved and that the community has said are valuable to them. [04:02:21] The EEs or ELs are not the goals. They're not the ends. This is simply, if you will, the parameters within which I and our staff can operate to achieve the goals. So I can speak more about that on question two. [04:02:37] do think the process is critically important otherwise it's very randomized and i don't think that's what we want i think clarity is critical so thank you thank you very much that is 100 why i will be supporting this because our our the person that we have chosen to lead our our organization is asking us for feedback and i think that it is only fair for us to actually follow through with that request in order for us to continue to move forward for the sake of our [04:03:05] our staff and our children go back miss st john kong oh miss st john kong um thank you uh dr reed for that and just to further an analogy i think that the way we give feedback to our teachers and to our students is the way we want to be giving feedback to our superintendent if we're supposed to have um success and if we wait till the end of the year to figure out that a student isn't [04:03:44] using a strategy that student's not going to be successful so i think the analogy just applies to consistently throughout our school system this is how we want to operate from the bottom up and from the top down thank you very much miss Sizemore heiser yeah i just wanted to um lift up i obviously i support this as a governance i voted for to continue this process um and i just want to lift up a couple things you know i i hear some concerns and i i felt them myself as a new board member coming in and going wait a minute why why are we finishing this work that was unfinished [04:04:21] or why are we finishing this work that wasn't done or why is the previous board asking us to do something it's hard to take up a board term in the middle of the year it's just hard right um and in some ways i can say that the previous board voted this way because we i think people felt that they didn't want to make this decision for this board and bind us to this decision but we also felt like the staff were in the middle of doing these reports and so if we were going to give direction or not we wanted to do it sooner rather than later so Dr. Reed and her staff knew what to expect and that's always a tension. I get it. I also want to say like you know I also hear wanting to be able to have time to with these reports. I think we talked in governance Mr. McGann you brought up of maybe we can post these reports somewhere more than just board docs and that could be a way to [04:05:01] sort of get around that mechanical of right that's why I mentioned having a strategic plan or EE page where they would get posted a week or two in advance so the public could see it as we see it. So I think there's ways around some of that accountability. You know, and I get it, we can't always do meetings on everything right we as it is, we feel like we have a lot of meetings. [04:05:19] And so what we we have kind of tried to do is call people ahead of time to kind of give some information, sometimes we split it up and. Mr Macklin I apologize you don't feel like you knew about this, we did try to try to reach out to you, it was a short amount of time between governance and now. But you know I think it's hard right takes a long time to make all of those phone calls to everybody, but that's one way we can sort of get that conversation one one on one. [04:05:43] as we build up and put out to the public. I will say that I think accountability and transparency is very important, right? And I think avoiding misalignment is very important. And I think this gives a clear accountability, right? [04:06:01] If we don't vote on the report, then Dr. Reid has no incentive to fix anything other than the goodness of her heart, right? There's, I mean, no offense, right? Let's be real here, right? Like when we vote, we're telling you, you didn't do it or you did do it, right? otherwise she's like all right i heard all these comments i'll take some i'll leave some right it's really more accountable and holding our superintendent more accountable which is our job and it's more transparent because we're telling the doing this in the public sphere so i feel really important about that accountability and transparency i think my time is up so i'll [04:06:31] stop thank you very much um dr anderson quickly i don't think i got any responses from um the two things that i laid out and i think mr mcdaniel talked about one of them which is making the um the documents public and again if everybody could be in agreement to that that would be great but i would like to have language on this page that speaks to the purpose of the vote what does it mean is it a snapshot in time or does this lock us in until that year's evaluation so i will be drafting up some language to share with you all around that if these two things are in place i [04:07:10] will be fine with that because the form is still optional but the form has to be public we cannot have a public conversation and part of it is not really available to the public so i i would want some language drafted around the purpose of the the vote what does it mean what does it mean today what does it mean in june so that's the thing that i need to have happen in order to be supportive of those three pieces thank you very much mr moon oh i'm sorry i i guess i'm looking for i frankly i don't even know who to talk to to ask about that so i will be drafting some language to send that [04:07:48] forward so as you guys are talking please try to address that because as i shared earlier the reports are great formative that information is key as you can tell because i talk a lot about them at the meetings but i need for these other two components so please share in your commentary thank you mr nelson um mr chairman i don't know what we'll be doing on this saturday and next saturday and i'm i'm hoping that you know we get to talk about how we gonna be working together for the next four years and as part of that i one of the things that i because because i missed the [04:08:28] last four years how the board worked during the last four years whether there was a new process or not the way we do next steps quite different right whether those are all visible to public i do not know uh so uh i'll be asking you know questions about that okay so having said that Thank you, thank you Mr. Seismar Heiser that you and I seem to be believing in the same accountability and transparency. Mr. McDaniel, thank you for listening. He can multitask, [04:09:03] which I cannot. Raising a couple of concerns on your part. I want to re-emphasize that it's not that I don't believe in providing feedback. I do. Superintendents need that feedback. It's not that I don't want to vote that's not either I just don't want to vote on the same night as presented because I want to just give myself a little more time after the board's discussion to reflect upon and especially when you vote I do not know because I have never voted on this ease whether this is [04:09:40] simply compliance or not in compliance you're looking at this optional suggested optional format form it has making adequate progress towards compliance whether somebody make that motion and then and then that's the part of voting as well i do not know because i have never done it and i don't even know what compliance means because for example uh ee9 which was presented to us at the last meeting correct it has one through eleven and then under one it has a through So it could be taken as a whole thing is like 15 things. [04:10:18] And if I, as one individual board member, see that superintendents not in compliance, one of those 16, do I vote not in compliance, or do I vote in compliance? Do I say, using this one, make a huge progress towards compliance? [04:10:38] Because it's a, so whether those compliance, not in compliance is defined anywhere. Defined anywhere. So that is where I'll be. I mean, he may be saying compliance, but I say with the same thing I say not in compliance because she missed one. [04:10:56] I may be considered to be a very hard grader. I may be looking for 100% perfect score from Dr. Reed, and somebody may say, you know, 97 point is good enough. So that's, thank you. [04:11:17] Ms. Jackson. I guess I'm stuck to the form again. So I understand the way we have a form, and we also have a vote option, and the feedback is important. [04:11:33] But I'm trying to understand the timeline of all this. It's like, do we do quarterly feedbacks? Do we do, no, just annual? So there's, I think, 14 EEs in the governance manual. [04:11:51] Each one of those is presented once a year to report on, because there's 14 different ones. So it's 14 reports, but each particular topic is presented once a year. In addition to that, we have the goal reports on the strategic plan. So there's five goals in the strategic plan, and once a year, there's a report presented on that to see where we are on progress towards those goals. [04:12:15] So all of those get voted on, right? But for the EEs, the feedback is on each report when it's presented, 14 reports throughout the year, but each report is presented once a year. Does that make sense? Like each topic or the evaluation? [04:12:35] Yeah, yeah. Evaluation. Evaluation is once a year, once a year, once a year. So this form, which we may or may not use, can is given 12 times a year, 14 times a year on 14 different EEs. [04:12:51] And this is not also part of the vote. This is just something. So my question is, we are giving her feedback as a board. Then why do not collate all the information and give this together? Why does that information is then available to everyone, to the public, to the superintendent, and Mr. Locke-14? [04:13:14] I would say that that is the practice usually. That's the practice I'm used to in other divisions is that those forms are all collected and they're all made public as one group. for the 13 EEs and the five goals the forms so 18 different votes and 18 different sets of forms but they're all collated in one document posted publicly. Yeah I think I would like that instead of doing somebody from submitting informal forms and we don't know because I would like to know [04:13:51] what Mr. Moon said or what Mr. Dunn said and Mr. you know Anderson said I want to listen to everybody's come you know a feedback because that's also learning experience for me as well so i would definitely be interested in that as a part of the process thank you okay i believe yes mr frisch no no you're correct all right um to respond to dr anderson's comments uh yes to making [04:14:26] them public i think that's essential um oh i thought you asked specifically for feedback on that okay and the second one about the language characterizing what the votes mean I'm in favor of that in theory depending on what the language says but I agree I think that's fine and then in terms of the forms look we're we're given various opportunities to provide this kind of feedback and share it with each other one of those is at the dais when we're receiving the report this is another opportunity I'm not going to hold it against a colleague if they [04:15:01] decide on one of the expectations to not fill out their form one of the things you'll find when you dig into the expectations is that some of them are very basic does the superintendent have a plan for succession if they're not available to do the job that's pretty straightforward right so there are some like that and then there are others like human resources which are far more expansive so I'm not going to hold it against my colleagues if they don't fill out their forms you know I will also take it upon myself to have conversations with them about these things as they go forward but I've appreciated the conversation thus far [04:15:35] and you know the as to you know what we're voting on here and whether the forms are subjective and whatnot I think everything we do to some degree is subjective you know even before any of this came up when I was a new board member we were voting on goal reports which had been the practice of the previous board and the board before that and those votes are subjective right it's all about our interpretation of the evidence presented and so some people are going to see it one way and some people are going to see it another way sometimes we'll all see it the same way in varying shades so um i think as long as i maintain a view that somebody who disagrees with the interpretation is [04:16:12] doing it from a genuine position um that it can be very productive miss st john cunning okay perfect okay with that not seeing any further go backs um we're going to go ahead and move on to question number two so miss eismore has will you explain question number two please yeah and just as a sort of follow-up to this i know dr anderson recommend circulating language miss dixon i'm happy to work with you if you want to circulate language and having the forms publicly available right that could be something that could be added as an amendment to this as well so i'm happy to talk to you about how to do that i know you said you're going to circulate language ricky [04:16:51] as well um so the next step of this with this comes to a vote for the board on february 8th um and so we can before it's posted we can talk about whether the language or it can come as an amendment did you want to talk to me yeah so the next question that we have um it came up in governance and the governance committee voted a recommendation to the question is again this is the memo it was sent shall the board continue to use executive expectations as currently written in the governance manual or change to executive limitations and the governance committee voted to recommend that the board change to executive [04:17:29] limitations and are presenting this draft red line document that's posted on board docs containing the executive limitation language i talked a little earlier about the difference between executive limitations and expectations but just as a way to frame part two of the conversation executive limitations from my understanding and i'm going to ask dr reid to give her thoughts as well is gives the ceo the parameters the swim lanes if you will in which to operate you know the these executive expectations were revised from the previous operational expectations that [04:18:06] had been in the governance manual from i think two or three boards ago and it was the same very similar format we revised it to be in alignment with our strategic plan the strategic plan was a year of work with thousands of input staff leadership team community stakeholders board members coming up with the direction the goals for the system the expectations were done to align with the operational expectations that we expect our superintendent to do to achieve the goals the ends this treaty plan the expectations were the the means the limitations set swim lanes [04:18:43] for those means these are the things you cannot do within that use your operational judgment creativity with accountability with the reports to operate the system and achieve this treaty plan goals and measures executive expectations or operational expectations what we had before are where the board tells the ceo what actions we expect them to take to operate the system to achieve the goals it's it's a sort of nuanced difference one is here's the things you know here's your swim lanes go do what you need to do to get to the other side otherwise it's here's how to swim to get to the other side um that's how i kind of wrap my head around it so the governance [04:19:23] committee discussed this and recommended to the board voted to recommend to the board that the board change to executive limitations language with as presented in this draft red line i'm happy to go through talk about why the governance committee made that decision if people want to hear that or if you want to turn over to dr reid so it's an outline to the memo i'll just briefly sort of go through what the governance committee talked about and then people on the committee can of course share their perspectives as well the governance committee really focus on the fact that the executive expectations prescribe operational actions thus could limit her ability [04:19:59] to use operational education expertise while it doesn't say as mr dunn mentioned that she can only do those things because we're prescribing certain actions it um might make it more difficult for her to decide to do things she hasn't been told to do because she's not sure if that's okay with the board because we've prescribed what she can do um it also can executive expectations can potentially give two sets of expectations for what this the board expects the superintendent to do the strategic plan goals and measures are the expectations that we put together those are the goals that we expect her to accomplish by 2030. if we then have executive expectations it's [04:20:35] additional expectations of what we expect her to do that could be in alignment or not in alignment and could potentially risk it could lead to a lack of clarity of which set of expectations the executive should follow and could lead to one set not being followed in fact i think it came up during governance that the previous operational expectations that had been in the board had been not followed and the reports hadn't been done once the strategic plan was in place so that's exactly what we're trying to avoid is not having one set for lack of better word put on the shelf it can lead to misalignment between the goals and measures of the strategic plan whereas limitations can work in conjunction or in alignment with the strategic plan [04:21:14] right if i use a swim analogy if our strategic plan says you must swim 25 meters in under 10 seconds. And I'm making up this time because clearly I'm not a swimmer. So I have no idea if that's doable. But if our strategic plan is your goal that we've set for you is 25 meters in 10 seconds, an expectation model would tell her you must do that swim freestyle. A limitations model would say you must do that swim within these lanes. But within these lanes, you tell us what type of swimming, what stroke you want to use that you think you can get to the end in 10 [04:21:48] seconds. So I might say do freestyle and Dr. Rhee might say I'm a really good butterflyer, right? And I'm not judging your swimming. So that's how I kind of wrap my head around it. The expectations are we need to get 25 meters in 10 seconds and you must do it freestyle. Limitations are you need to get 25 meters in 10 seconds within these lanes and you decide what stroke you can do the best. [04:22:12] And then you tell us which stroke and why and we'll tell you whether that was the right thing to do so that's how i look at it so we've limitations sets lanes that can be in alignment with strategic plan but leaves room for more creativity expectations prescribes actions which can then dampen the ability for the executive to say they didn't tell me to do this but i think it's right to do so hopefully i won't get in trouble hopefully they're okay with it dr did you want to add anything to that from your understanding of this process and you don't need to talk swim strokes if you don't want to thank you miss sizemore heiser i can stay with [04:22:43] swim strokes for a moment i think the other thing the board as the um lawyer certainly can do is at any time make those limitations more or less limited so if i decide to find a torpedo assist to help me swim down the lane with any stroke the board could determine that in fact that's not acceptable so the board might come back and say we think you need to get down to the end in 10 [04:23:20] seconds without motorized assistance right and you could come back at any time and say that and then that limits the options I have to get to the end of the pool I'm going to just read a couple things I did some research just to come up with some other language to talk about this So by clearly defining expected organizational results and setting parameters within which management has freedom, the staff and I being management, the board can unleash management creativity but still hold management rigorously accountable. [04:23:56] And I think what's important is that a lot of the research talks about something called prudence and ethics, and essentially saying that the manner in which the board delegates authority to the superintendent is within boundaries of prudence and ethics, which enables me then with our staff to make decisions about the means within those guidelines, whatever you feel is prudent or ethical. [04:24:25] And I think that it's also critical to recognize that sometimes the limitations, I know the double negative language is a little off-putting at times, but it actually creates a situation where I think the board is ultimately accountable for everything that happens in the organization. [04:24:50] You're elected, right? The superintendent's not elected. So you're accountable to the community for the outcomes of this system, and you're trusting that I'm going to manage in a way that's going to lead to the outcomes that you expect. All that these limitations are doing is providing some balance, and it's giving me as much authority as I can have to make decisions expeditiously with as much creativity and innovative solution-making as you will limit within whatever you feel is prudent and ethical. [04:25:27] So it's really kind of a nice balanced situation wherein the board allows the CEO to use any means as long as they fall within a reasonable interpretation of these policies, which provides more creative freedom than saying do it this way and then come back for approval if you want to do it a different way. [04:25:51] because it is a slippery slope if you go beyond the direction to a different pathway would it be approved or would it not do we need to go back and get those approvals before we head down this direction doesn't mean we wouldn't think to do that but I do think that achieving the ends would be unacceptable even if it worked if it wasn't prudent or ethical I think the board would say that's not acceptable so the limitations give that that range from which we can make decisions without making a clear direction of this is what you shall do to do it and let me be clear at this [04:26:28] table i will go either way i will do exactly what i'm directed to do and make sure our staff will be in compliance with what you expect or my preference is to give us some limits and allow us to go to work sharpen pencils and we've got great minds to come up with ways to solve issues to meet the goals that you set with the fidelity of limitations that you set for us so i think that frames it as well and i'm happy to answer any questions return to board questions [04:27:03] mr dunn thank you um i start from the perspective that i i very much understand what's being tried could be achieved here um but changing uh shall to shall not fail to um i don't i don't think gets us there uh you know if if we really want to achieve what the seismor heiser mr frisch and [04:27:36] others have put forward i don't understand why we are maintaining 15 or 16 pages of you know of executive limitations at all if if our goal is to achieve implementation of the strategic plan uh simply abolish the executive expectations limitations in their entirety and just have the only metrics be the strategic plan goals right i mean if you really want to free up the superintendent that's the way to go because uh changing happy to glad does not remove any of the um constrictions [04:28:15] i mean my mother is an english teacher i come from a family english majors there's absolutely nothing that changing shall do shall not fail to it all still applies i mean if you think it doesn't you're not reading it right i hate to tell you um so you know i would be open for a discussion of a much uh thorough pruning of these executive limitations expectations to be you know much more closely near the strategic plan that being said the strategic plan um as mystics have said they aren't phrased as smart milestones, you know, actionable, timely, et cetera. [04:28:53] Because if you look at, for example, goal four or goal five, you know, goal five sub-element H, students innovating and preparing for the future, I don't know how to measure that. Or even increasing of this and decreasing of that, it doesn't say by what percentage, by what year. [04:29:10] So we need to be much more specific so that we can actually say objectively, without any subjective interpretation, whether the superintendent has hit it or not. But I would like to ask Dr. Reed, you created the Twilight program. You've done other things without going to the board first. [04:29:28] How do you feel that the executive limitations opens up your creativity and operational judgment? I think regardless of language, I'll retain my license for creativity. [04:29:47] Whether or not I'll choose to exercise action on the basis of what I think might be a creative or innovative solution will be very much determined, but what I believe the board is expecting or directing me to do in this role. So I think as I shared before, the limitations give me space and our staff space to come up with ideas and thoughts to meet the goal needs. [04:30:19] A directive is a decision the board certainly also can make and a clear direction we will also follow. But we're not going to be creatively following a direction. I think when you're given a clear direction, you follow the clear direction. [04:30:39] Dr. Reed, would you be open to simply abolishing these executive expectations and limitations altogether and simply using the metrics of the strategic plan? Is that something that would be more appealing to you? It would not. I think the executive expectations really are, how do I say, they are the work, right? [04:31:03] they are the means by which we are going to get to the ends or the goals if we don't have a high functioning financial planning process a high functioning human resources process a high functioning instructional program high functioning safety and security if we don't have all of those areas functioning at a high level we are not going to realize the goals of the organization so i whether or not the board would choose to measure those benchmark those hold anyone accountable for those as a superintendent ceo i have to hold our organization accountable to those because when we [04:31:41] don't inspect regularly those aspects i think that the quality within those areas we're not ensuring a calibration to the mission if we're not checking those on an annual basis And, Mr. Dunn, I would almost liken it to when I turn on my car, I've got a dashboard in front of me, right? [04:32:03] And there are all kinds of instruments. And I have to take the car in to have it checked fairly often or it's going to stop running. And it doesn't matter what color the seats are, although it does to me. But it doesn't matter what color the paint, the seats. There are a lot of things that may not matter. [04:32:19] But if I don't attend to the critical core aspects that keep that vehicle running on a regular basis, it's going to stop running. And really, I feel like it's the same in a school division. If we don't attend to it on an annual basis, each one of our department functions, which are the pillars in the strategic plan, those are the means to the end. [04:32:40] I think it's to our peril. Now, again, whether the board needs to inspect that or not, that's for you as a board to decide. But as a CEO, it's critical that I'm taking a look at that in a significant way each and every year. Dr. Reed, has FCPS opined on the lawfulness of the carbon model of policy governance? [04:33:01] And are you aware of any data showing that the CARVER model actually improves the efficiency and effectiveness of school systems and good boards? So many of the higher performing divisions around the country use the CARVER model or some iteration of the CARVER model because it's so transparent, transparently accountable. [04:33:22] Many communities expect that level of accountability. So I could provide you names of divisions around the country currently do use that model. Opining about the legality of the model, I really, that would be more Mr. Foster's area in terms of the lawfulness of that, but I do know that Fairfax County many, many, many years ago actually had John Carver here, who is the author, not somebody else. [04:33:54] When you developed many aspects of the model, not you personally, Mr. Dunn, but when the division develop this in fact the four boards superintendent relations board governance all the policy governance manual mirrors the carver model to be quite honest so that question must have been answered many years ago mr foster i assume it's legal um so when this was first brought forward [04:34:27] we looked at it we didn't see any uh legal concerns um but we will take a fresh look at it [04:34:34] And maybe you could do a research bit of research on it and we could have something for a Friday letter. Yes. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you, John. Mr. Dunn did that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it does. If you can give me a list of systems offline, I'd appreciate it. Yes, sir. Mr. Fresh. Okay. Thank you. Miss Lady. Thank you. I just want to guess share the reality that I feel I do feel strongly in the in the shift in the language, given a thorough explanation. [04:35:18] You know, education, as we know, like any industry and like our world, is moving at a pace in terms of what's available, what's changing, what innovations are out there, what new programs, what new ideas. [04:35:34] And it's impossible for us as a board to have an expertise on that. The reason we hire staff and we hire staff in specific positions is they have expertise in those positions. And, you know, I think it is incumbent upon our superintendent to work within limitations because I do think that the last thing we want to do is sort of handcuff somebody who, at least it's been my experience in my one-on-ones, but also just sitting here doing all of our board work, that she's got connections all over this country of experts in different aspects of education. [04:36:14] And I just want to make sure we empower her to tap into those and figure out which ones would work or would be applicable to the things that we're facing as a system. And I trust her to do that with fidelity within the limitations. So the other thing I would say is to folks, you know, if you are not visiting your schools, I highly recommend you spend some time in your schools. [04:36:40] I've been fortunate to be in several of mine already and and just visiting and doing walk-ins to different classrooms and seeing differentiated instruction seeing, you know utilization of technology to enhance learning seeing You know sort of like breakout groups right where different groups are working on different things I mean, it's it's amazing to walk through classrooms and see how instruction is taking place in a way that meets where our kids are today in terms of their attention spans and their technology skills. [04:37:12] So I'm a big proponent of changing the language to limitations for the reasons that I've, I think, already indicated. Thank you. - Thank you very much. Ms. Dixon. [04:37:30] - In spirit, I agree with the swim lanes and what we are trying to do here and giving the CEO superintendent the creativity, what she can do in terms of schools, running the school system. [04:37:46] But the word, I mean, if I read something, and it could be just my own interpretation, but if you say emergency superintendent succession, the superintendent shall not fail to. If you remove the not fail to, it's same thing. [04:38:04] Like, I mean, it's, no, okay. Because it almost feels like that it's the not fail to is added to like the previous plan to just i guess maybe in a legal protection way to write that i i just want to understand that how how it helps to change the dialogue okay thank you um miss mecca or mr mckelveen i think that we're gonna my my comments oh i'm sorry you didn't put [04:38:40] it i think she's before me you didn't put it down before so i didn't let her go first she was that before me do this i appreciate it a couple of things that i want to make sure that i start with okay i'm sorry i thought you were still in the conversation a couple of things that i want to i want to talk about and i think mr dunn kind of hit upon some of these things i don't think anyone sees this language of the expectations as of as the ceiling it is not the ceiling i i think that [04:39:18] you have shown us since your time here dr reed and even before we had the executive expectations when we still had operational expectations that you were willing to use your creativity you stood up an office of chief experience officer pretty much right out the gate that was never a department that we've had before the strategic plan office that marcy planning office that marcy neal heads we did not have that before so respectfully i do not see the language as listed as diminishing your opportunity to be creative. But I'm going to go back and take the long lens a little bit because [04:39:57] I think the executive limitations as written, it gives birth to other information and other assumptions of policy governance. You were very good to give us that Carver text and I dug into it very, very deeply when you provided it to us. That Carver text says that the expectations, I'm sorry, the limitations. They come in with board and superintendent, the BSRs. So there's more to come. But however, even when we got set up for this conversation, and I think we probably could have avoided a lot of the issues with the former board and maybe some of the issues that [04:40:35] you're hearing now. In presenting this, the text itself says it should be provided by a consultant who's had the full training of the Carver model, which we have not had. We have had what you have provided and we have had what Marcy Neal has provided. The book furthermore states that the CEO should not be the one leading this work because it creates role confusion. You should be outside of the work. And again, we have not had that. I think if we had had that consultant [04:41:10] walk the board through that information, this information, we would have been better set up for success. But I also think this board 30 days in should also have the benefit of that full breadth of information. One of the other things that I want to share is, and I appreciate kind of the examples of, you know, the swim lane. And again, I think it's just a matter of preference. And you actually said so yourself. I don't believe that this language stops you from doing the work. [04:41:42] We've had middle school sports, which were not indicated in any EEs. The Twilight program, which Mr. Dunn shared, not indicated in any EEs. So you have been doing the work. What increases from expectations to limitations is the communication with the board. [04:42:02] It's not necessarily just going off ahead and doing and leaving us behind. The Twilight program, you didn't ask us for permission. You sent some information in a Friday note, Friday letter. You were doing it, and off you went. That's the piece that speaks to the accountability to which this board is to do as per the Commonwealth's regulations. [04:42:26] And that's why I think, personally, I have been struggling with having that brain just be completely removed. I see that's my time, but I would like a go back. Mr. McElveen. [04:42:41] Thank you. Just to expand on my colleague who just spoke, you know, I'm not personally familiar with the Carver model. It's just another example of me as one new board member. I haven't received a book or a text about this, so I would be grateful for any material. [04:42:57] I don't feel comfortable moving forward with something that I don't have background on. I do also want to identify myself with Mr. Dunn's remarks, which I think were very good. My strongest concern with this is that by adopting limitations, the board will, as we have seen, need to rewrite all of the EEs because an expectation is inherently very different than a limitation. [04:43:20] Otherwise, all of the EE structure will be intellectually incongruent with the meaning of limitations. Changing to limitations means rewriting all the EEs to convey the superintendent's limitations. This, I believe, sets a negative tone versus an optimistic tone for the board superintendent relationship. [04:43:42] Similar to parenting, managing, or teaching, I would argue that people function best knowing what is expected of them versus how we are limiting them. I would not be saying the truth if I didn't say that I have been incredibly inspired by Dr. Reid's leadership on many of the issues that have been raised today, including school food, which is something that hasn't been brought up. [04:44:08] But this is the first time I've been disappointed with seeing this language before me. So I'll leave it there. - Mr. Frisch. - Thank you very, thank you very, it's working. [04:44:24] I just still can't hear quite properly. All right, as to the Carver model, we don't use the Carver model. The conversation started with that book and kind of moved away from that book pretty quickly. And we've ended up with, like Fairfax does, our own thing. [04:44:41] the original language that was provided to the board was in limitation format and switched to expectations and then a few edits were made to the text of those expectations over time, over the course of our consideration. I think one of the things to consider is that when you put it in the frame of limitations, expectations are baked into limitations. [04:45:03] It is the expectation that the superintendent will be guided by these swim lanes, okay? And if our chief executive is telling us when it's simply expectations there is a there is a feeling that the work will be guided towards achieving those expectations preeminently at the expense of creativity and other things then i think we have to listen to that and i'm comfortable you know with advancing a process that not only moves us towards providing swim lanes for the superintendent but to the point of whether or not anything has to be rewritten provides a regular method for rewriting these [04:45:42] things editing them removing them adding new ones as we consider this work on a cyclical basis and if something were to present itself as a challenge throughout the year as the as the language states we can jump in and make edits to that process or the or those limitations whenever we so choose and then the superintendent has to adjust the work as a result so i'm comfortable with the answer that the governance committee reached on the first question and the second question [04:46:11] and um i think that's it for me mr moon thank you uh i abstained at the governance committee meeting on the second question whether we should change from e to er for several different reasons [04:46:45] and also at the meeting that i i expressed a a my genuine surprise how the superintendent interpreted or took expectations in such a way that hey those other things are the ones are the only ones that i was expected to do and someone stated that's a minimum standard i ex fully expected superintendent to provide those work toward those expectations and go beyond but [04:47:20] if i don't know whether whether whether i misheard what she misspoke if whether that is still her interpretation of expectation language those are the those are the only ones that i'm gonna be doing and i'm expected to do obviously she has done much more than that and some of the examples have been given by my fellow board members and we all know that so with that in mind uh since someone mentioned about you know this carbon matter you know having come in you know even be even way [04:47:57] before in the prior board this came in if you look at our government government manual you will see the adopted first adopted December in 2006 that's when I was if I'm not mistaken when I was serving as the board chair I think of this you know the initial conversation started in 2005 and we had talked about this for a long time to develop the in a governance manual at the time we talked about policy, policy governance. We discussed about ER at the time and the [04:48:32] board was deadlocked at the time and ended up landing on operational expectations, OE, and instead of choosing a, if you look at the cover of the manual, instead of saying policy governance manual, like a Fairfax way, we chose it to say, to say strategic governance manual for precisely that reason that we were not going to be doing the policy governance, something different, and then we settled on an OE. [04:49:07] Obviously, I was not part of the prior board that had wrestled with, you know, same, same discussion, and they landed on now something different that I was not familiar with. Now it's EE's, executive expectations, and when I look at the language between, you know, compare the language between EE's and OE's, they look pretty similar. [04:49:29] They look pretty similar in overall concept. So prior board, prior board landed on EE's, that was back in June, June timeframe, June timeframe. I never expected, I never expected that our new board would be starting our work with this discussion again, only six months after the prior board adopted EE language. [04:49:59] I don't know whether that's the best usable time at this juncture. I mean, I would much prefer-- - Thank you, Mr. McDaniel, would you like to go back? - Go back, yes ma'am. - Mr. McDaniel. [04:50:20] - So I was, I did vote to bring this forward. Again, I support doing this, I'm a yes to the question, and for a full board conversation as well. I don't really get too hung up on Carver. You know, I kind of view it as like, when we talk about cheeseburgers, it's like, well, do you want the McDonald's or the Burger King or the Wendy's? [04:50:38] Let's just talk about the cheeseburger. So, and we do in Fairfax, we customize things. Let's call it the Fairfax model if you want to. It's really immaterial to me. I've made it 30 days on this board without a reference to the fact that I'm a pilot, which for a pilot is miraculous, but I'm going to break that now. [04:50:57] So, I heard this in my aviation career. I don't know if it's true or not. It doesn't really matter. It illustrates a point. In the military, there are several branches that fly airplanes, and one branch gives their pilots a book that says this is what you can do. Another branch gives their pilots a book that says this is what you cannot do. [04:51:15] And can versus cannot is a very different thing. And I kind of view this conversation in the same light. Can versus cannot. Fundamentally, though, I think that this really a big factor here is trust and whether or not we have the confidence in the superintendent, if we make this move, that we have that confidence and that trust in the superintendent, that we will continue to, that she will continue to, in good faith, execute the will of this board. [04:51:47] I have that confidence, so another reason I'm supporting this, but to Dr. Anderson's point, and I take this very seriously, that requires robust oversight and communication between this board and the superintendent, because if we make this change, there isn't necessarily a formal requirement for Dr. Reed to come back for permission to do something because we're now limiting versus expecting. However, I will point out that even with making this change, nothing prevents this [04:52:21] board from putting in a new limitation. So if something is, in our view, out of line, I don't know what that would be, but hypothetically, we can vote and we can put a limitation in place. I also view the fact that this decision is in conjunction with or at the same time as the discussion over the previous discussion we just had, where we're putting on top of this a fairly hefty layer of oversight and communication and feedback. [04:52:52] If these things were bifurcated and not being done at the same time, I would have more heartburn. But because we're now taking this decision to move to a limitation and layering on top of it a robust feedback mechanism, I'm a yes to question two. [04:53:11] Thank you. I really appreciate the robust discussion and conversation. And I'm glad you mentioned the can and cannot. That's how I see the shall versus shall not fail to language, right? It is totally, and I understand how it can read clunky. So I kind of looked through and I found on page 31, for example, just an example. [04:53:29] It says the superintendent shall or shall not fail to, number six, provide age-appropriate safety and security curriculum for students to support their safety and well-being. So if that language is the superintendent shall provide age-appropriate safety and security to support their safety and well-being, well, what I read is for students to support their safety and well-being. [04:53:51] Well, what about supporting other students' safety and well-being? And I think age-appropriate safety and security curriculum could include anti-bullying curriculum, which actually supports someone else's, well, someone other student's well-being. If it says the superintendent shall not fail to provide age-appropriate, et cetera, et cetera, curriculum, that means she has to provide this age-appropriate curriculum for students to support their safety and well-being. [04:54:15] She can't fail to do that, but she can also do other things. And that's how I see the difference. we're telling you what to do means for an executive well this is what the board said to do so i don't know if i can do the other stuff some of these things have brought up the um middle school sports the um the new offices were done before we had executive expectations in place so that was done without the structure in place so i don't know what the structure in place whether that would happen or not um so i do think there's a real difference um and i also just want to bring back like you know i know in 2006 right we you all pass as you mentioned mr mr moon the um [04:54:51] executive expectations but that was when there was no strategic plan in fact i think it was mr moon who said during the governance meeting once the strategic plan was passed in 2015 they stopped using the expectations because they had a strategic plan that's exactly how they can be in conflict when you have two different sets of expectations that's why the difference now right when in 2006 my understanding was there was no set of expectations. So that became the expectations. [04:55:20] Now, if we have two different sets of expectations, it can be potentially in conflict. I look at it as a floor and a ceiling, right? The strategic plan is the ceiling. That's what we're aiming, what we want her to aim to get to. These are the floors, right? In between that is how she builds to get there. How do we have accountability of how she's building to get there? That's the strategic plan goal reports, right? That's where we talk about what's the baseline data, what are your metrics, what are you aiming for, what are your objectives, and how are you getting there? [04:55:50] That's how we see what these are our expectations and here's how you're achieving them. This is what's the floor that we've set for you and how you're going to get there and our minimum expectations of what you shall not fail to. They work in conjunction, right? So it's not one or the other. So we're holding our accountable in two different ways. Are you operating the system in a way that's going to achieve these goals in your operational expertise and if not we're going to change it tweak it that's part of the process every year to change and tweak it and are you achieving the goals but if you have two different sets of goals how does she know which one to work [04:56:24] towards that's why I like the two in conjunction I know I'm out of time. Ms. Marin you had your placard up earlier thank you um okay I'm going to go ahead and take my turn um I agree with Russia completely sorry I agree I agree completely that this is a floor ceiling conversation is that giving us the baseline expectations as to what we're looking for without necessarily giving the ceiling is important for the same reason that mr mcdaniel was discussing we already have some shall not fail to language within the different policies and so i think that and what i will say [04:57:04] is i also think this is a further explanation of why these two things do need to be made the decision needs to be made in concert with each other because if we do give the floor expectation or floor limitations of what we're expecting and then we need to be able to give feedback so talking to dr anderson's point that we do need to give robust feedback in this circumstance that's why i'm voting yes on question number one and so these two things do work together in order to move forward i guess i would ask just generally of those of you who say [04:57:39] that you don't see a difference in one or the other what's the concern with moving towards what what is being recommended here um if that's the case so that's the question that i kind of i'm just going to put out there in terms of i don't understand why we're why we're upset about it if we don't see a difference in the two if we are receiving information from a myriad of sources that's letting us know that this is and i said this in governance and i actually questioned whether or not i was going to say it here we are acting in very much the same way with [04:58:15] the state on several things related to i mean it was a large part of the discussion sorry it was a large part of the discussion related to the history standards is that we always understood that if there was the change in the history standards that would be the floor it would be the baseline recommendation of what we needed to do and we have the ability to move ahead and so i very much see that this is the same type of circumstance that's going on here and we should definitely allow this to move forward so that is my feedback um i have a i have a number of people that are showing [04:58:51] interest in go backs um mr dunn you didn't put your hand down but i assume that that was because you had more to say that may not have been correct okay miss lady so when i'm confused about vocabulary i turn to google and when i google executive limitations the word governance comes up right next to it and when you pull it up i found a very interesting powerpoint that's describing exactly what we have said here but in some more sort of sophisticated jargon but when i google executive [04:59:29] expectations governments i come up with a litany of different types of expectations of ceos but not within the construct of what we're talking about so i'm just putting that out to my colleagues because it seems like we're uncomfortable with the word limitations but that's terms that like the universal approach to what it is we're talking about so thank you thank you uh miss dixon so my concern was not with the word limitation actually it's it's a part of the process and um and there's [05:00:02] a is widely used my concern was only with the word not fail to and i uh i find fail word very um negative in a way, just we talk about student performance and we put somebody like fail and pass, you know, those that can think. [05:00:20] So why is to say shall not to fail instead of we can, can we use something in like a more positive note and maybe something like deliver, which is, you know, government contracting, we use that word deliverable a lot, right? [05:00:35] So is that an issue with using a different word instead of that? going back to the government model just really fast. This is DODI type language. So this is a very common structure within government systems to use shall and shall not, shall, shall not, shall not fail to. [05:00:54] The whole idea is that you're trying to give those clear expectations. And so a lot of this is word of art type of things that I completely understand why the decision was made to use the language. I also understand that we need to be careful about putting our preconceived notions about the word fail related to education onto this circumstance just because it's a little, it's not the same thing. [05:01:18] So I understand where you're going, but yes. - Yeah, it's not just education worldwide. Fail is not a good word, right? And we're putting it to the next to superintendents, expectation or limitation. And if this is the only word can be used in the world, I'm fine with that. [05:01:38] I'm just saying that if there was a better choice of word without damaging the concept, I would prefer that. That's all. - Thank you. [05:01:54] Okay, Dr. Anderson. - Thank you. I'm not sure if I can answer your question because I was one of the people who did see a difference between the two. And again, going back to the text that was provided to us and probably why Robin found it, it's because executive limitations is tied to the CARVA model. [05:02:12] It actually says that in one of the pages. it is its thing, it exists nowhere else. So that's why she was able in her Google search to see that it's aligned to it. Most importantly, here's what I want to ask the superintendent. [05:02:28] After this conversation, no matter what happens, whether it be limitations or expectations, what else will you be bringing forward that you will need? Because one of the things we stopped talking about with the last board, the BSRs, will that be making a return? [05:02:48] I don't believe that's for me to determine. So that would be a board decision. And I think that's where my issue is. When we adopt the limitations, we are adopting components of the CARVA model, including the BSRs. This is just going to open the door for more and more things to come. If we are saying as a board, this is it, we're done, that's a different conversation for me, rather than saying this opens the opportunity for other things to come through. [05:03:18] And if we are opening the door for other parts of the model to come through, because, again, the Carver Techs has multiple chapters about these BSRs, then we need to have the full training. Can I ask a point of clarification? I know it's not really a thing, but BSR, what does that stand for? [05:03:37] Board Superintendent Relations. There were a whole set of reports that were to come with that. There's some documents that are still posted on board docs when this was first introduced. I just don't want to see that funneling come in piecemeal without us having a comprehensive training of what all of these things mean. [05:03:58] And again, if we're saying this is it, that's such a different conversations for me than, well, maybe next time we'll bring this other thing. Maybe next time we'll bring that other thing. Where is our comprehensive training on this? We, I, as one board member, along with three others, we've had a couple of retreats. [05:04:17] We've had multiple work sessions. We've had some conversations in the dais, and I still don't feel like I have a full breadth of understanding of what is it that all of these things mean. And I look into that Carver text on a very regular basis. [05:04:32] And I could only imagine, as Mr. McElveen has shared, how unprepared he is to make these decisions. If we are expecting other things to come through, then we need to pause and have a full conversation with the whole gamut, with the whole continuum over what can be happening. [05:04:49] and the last thing that i'll say so i don't need to go back we talked about honoring the board the work of the former board the former board decided to stop at executive expectations there's a reason for that okay mr moon thank you just quickly uh responding to uh there not having been a strategic plan when initially this governance manuals were adopted back in 2006 a the board at the time might [05:05:25] not have a called in strategic plan but ever since i began serving on the school board from 1995 i'm sure that even before that we always had goals whether you know a beginning as i recollect might have been called targets and then later became student achievement goals and under doctor guards i became ignite and and now we have a new name but we system system had to have you know goals, annual goals and long-term goals. We have always had these goals. [05:05:58] Ms. Mayor. I would never try to convince any of you to agree with me. I just state my case. But what I am trying to understand is again why there is some some call for specific things. I've heard a call to edit the form, to receive training, to change the language. What I don't understand is I don't think that harm will come from adopting this model and if I were new on the board right now [05:06:36] in five months I'd have to evaluate our superintendent with whatever was put in front of me and that's how we were left to do it and you know what I don't think we did it on time I'm not above criticizing a prior board and I will say I could share examples of predicaments that this board is in and the prior board has been in because we did not have such a system but the ironic thing is, we did. It is actually in place. We currently have the executive expectations in place. It's just [05:07:10] that somewhere, a board decided to stop using them. I just, again, I come back to, will this do harm? Will this do harm in the next six months? Could we agree to use this model as governance has poured over it? And we answer these questions, could we agree to use this model for the next six months, do a round of evaluation with the superintendent, and then let's have work session on it, or it goes back to governance. [05:07:36] But we have not yet had the opportunity to try this out. We tried the other day with the instructional services, and there were pages and pages of things. And I agree there could have been more details and whatnot, but can we just try this model that our chief executive is asking us to do? [05:07:53] I don't otherwise see. My proposal is can we try, can we agree with what governance is proposing? They're asking us for two decision points, but can we agree and use this for the next six months and in June Can we then schedule a time to reevaluate and have a discussion? [05:08:10] Because we have so much work to do and I just don't know what else I can add at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moon. I'm sorry. Okay I'm uncomfortable revisiting in June. We have a lot of stuff that happens in June I think it's I think I am open to considering a proposal to reopen the conversation if the board wants to do that at a later date. [05:08:44] But I think we would all benefit from, and the superintendent would benefit from, knowing consistency. I'll give an example. When we approved the last school calendar, I didn't vote for it originally, but I supported the concept of a three-year calendar, even though I didn't support the calendar that was selected, because it provides continuity of services, it provides continuity of planning, and I think that's critically important. [05:09:10] So look, I don't expect everybody to agree on every single thing that this board does. I think what we should try to do is compromise where possible to try and get to a better place. But I think that we shoot ourselves in the foot if we are in a continuous cycle of opening the door to changing what we've just decided on. [05:09:34] And I think as far as Dr. Anderson's comments about the BSRs and whatnot. As I remember, the last time we talked about board superintendent relations was when it was pointed out that the language baked into the governance manual had everything that it needed. [05:09:52] And the only suggestion that was made was that it could be isolated into one page versus being disparate throughout the document. And I think we just decided to keep it disparate throughout the document and move forward. and we certainly decided that no action was taken. [05:10:12] And so I support the first question, I support the second question, and I would love to see this practice in, you know, this work in practice. Do you remember when our next executive item is coming up? [05:10:29] In two weeks? - I believe it's end of February. - In February. You know, if this board votes to move this forward in on February 8th is the process that we'll be using. I think people have a very good idea of what that's like two weeks later. [05:10:49] As for Carver and company and everything else, again, I'm not basing my support for this based on that book and because I don't think that we have, A, a lot of what's in that book has nothing to do with school boards. [05:11:06] A lot of what's in there is about the relationship between expectations and limitations on a chief executive that's what i'm interested in is how we can have a constant a cycle of constant improvement and again we're gonna have to work on a dinger because i don't know that any of us are just watching the clock as we speak but i apologize for going over miss dixon you want another go back uh no i but i would say that um i'm also in support of question you know too and then again i just was looking for a better term [05:11:41] and the language and also if it aligns with strategy goal and like at some point like miss maron said we can revisit it that how about coming up with the new set of uh parameters which are more aligned with our strategic goal like number one five like two five instead of these 18 or 19 of them consolidate a bit thank you uh mr moon i'll just quickly commenting upon what Ms. Marion stated earlier about governance committee poring over the language. [05:12:19] Governance committee did not really por over the language. We talked about whether we would bring certain recommendations to full board, and then this was just crafted by a governance committee chair to be shared with the board what it might look like, and this didn't come in, come to the board, full board, until late last night. [05:12:42] So, Governance Committee did not really pour over the languages of limitations. Ms. Seismerheiser. Just to be clear, the Governance Committee was given a draft of what the language might look like to help our discussion. [05:13:01] And the committee then voted that they liked the draft as presented, and there might be some other things. The committee wanted to make sure that it was looked at again to make sure there wasn't any other places where we needed to tweak the language to make it a limitations language. So the committee had a draft of what the red line would look like with limitations language. [05:13:20] The committee voted to move forward with it with the caveat that they wanted to have one more look to make sure there wasn't any place that limitations language was missing. That was Thursday when that happened, and they asked me as committee chair to work with staff to get that. That review was done and posted on board docs on Friday. [05:13:39] So it wasn't just yesterday or today. The memo came yesterday. That is very true, but the language of the document was posted on Friday. And that was the day after the Governance Committee meeting. So I know it was short from that, but because the meeting wasn't until Thursday, that was as quick as we could get it posted. [05:13:55] But the Governance Committee did have the document with the language, and they wanted one more review to make sure there wasn't any spots that were missed. So I just want to clarify that piece of it. What I wanted to just lift up as a reminder, and Ms. Dixit, I think you made a really good point, can we review this language, right? one of the things that is baked into this process is that after we hear the report we vote on whether it's in compliance fill out the form we then get to vote on each ee el as it's brought to us whether we want to revise that ee or el so for example the one we hear at end of february we can vote to say hey we want to revise this and either and usually it could be to send to governance whatever the [05:14:33] process could be but as and that's baked in every year because you wanted to have that constant improvement so that can be done um in my opinion one of the reasons it's read like this is when we changed to expectations it was in it was there was a lot put in there right and it became way and in fact i think i lived up during the work session this isn't the strategic plan like we so i think there's room to do that this tweak right now that shall not fail to and i it's really shall not not do but shall not not do sign it worse than shall not fail to right but that's really the concept it's not fail as much as the superintendent shall not not do and that was more [05:15:10] confusing if that makes sense right so it's as opposed to failure it's we want to make sure that you're not not doing this stuff and i probably confused everybody with that language um but what i just wanted to say is that there is baked into the process constant revision every year on this to make sure it's in alignment with this treaty plan and streamline that we want to so we can do [05:15:29] do that as each report is presented. Mr. Moon, did you have another go back? Okay. Seeing no further go backs. So we appreciate the conversation. I don't see any other hands up or go backs on this. There is again no vote today. You have the language as it's written. There's time to have conversations, you know, individually one on one. The vote for both of these will be on February 8th. I'm looking at our chair to confirm. I know for both of these question one and question two will be on February 8th. If there's some language tweaks I know Dr. Anderson mentioned [05:16:05] circulating language mistakes that you mentioned some language as well on question one we can circulate that um as and i'll talk to our chair whether that needs to be amendments whether that can be incorporated into this draft we'll figure that piece of it out on question one but the vote for both of these will be on february 8th is there anything else mr chair we want to add dr reed anything you wanted to add in closing on this thank you all for the robust conversation and the thoughtfulness thank you to the governance committee i know um this was a lot so i really appreciate it. And we're finishing an hour and 15 minutes early if we adjourn. So we're adjourned. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coraggio Consulting ยท aguyonx.com