[00:00:10]
MEETING OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE ORDER IS, UH, 4:32 PM ON JULY 12TH.
UM, FIRST ITEM IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD AND JUSTICE.
THE NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
HEY, MOTION MADE BY MS. KATHY ROAD LINE SECOND BY DAVID STRIVEN JER.
ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S SEE ANY HANDS UP.
LET TO CALL THEM UP SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? OKAY, SO MOVING ALONG, WE HAVE THE MAY 10TH COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO MOVED SECOND AND THAT BY KATHY ROBOT.
AND THEN BY ANY DISCUSSION, NO HANDS RAISED.
THERE'S SOMEONE ON THE PARTICIPANTS LIST.
IT'S A BUNCH OF NUMBERS AND LETTERS.
CAN I HAVE THEM IDENTIFY THEMSELVES PLEASE? I THINK IT'S ME.
THIS IS INGRID DISTRICT PHONE.
UM, MOLLY OR ROBIN, CAN YOU CHANGE THAT TO REFLECT INGRID? THANK YOU.
NEXT ITEM IS ITEM E DISCUSSION OF THE REQUESTED POLICIES.
WE ARE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE THE MAKER OF THAT ORIGINAL MOTION SITTING ON THE POLICY COMMITTEE.
UM, SO THIS IS A REQUEST, UH, TO HAVE THIS LOOKED AT BY US AND PERHAPS REWARDED.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THAT, MR.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I MADE THIS MOTION BECAUSE THAT MONEY NEEDS NEEDED TO GET ROLLED FORWARD INTO THE CURRENT BONDING CYCLE AND NOT BORROW MONEY WHEN WE HAD 10 MILLION LAYING AROUND.
UM, SO THAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THIS SUBSEQUENT TO THIS.
I THINK MY COLONEL GEIER ABOUT WHEN YOU CLOSE THE PROJECT DOWN, I THINK IT WAS AFTER FOUR YEARS, YOU HAD TO CLOSE IT OUT.
SO THAT KIND OF GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THIS IS THAT DEFINES UNUSED AFTER FOUR YEARS WHEN USE, NOW THIS BECOMES PROBLEMATIC A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE HANDLED 8% FUNDS THIS YEAR, BECAUSE WE SAID WE WEREN'T GOING TO ROLL ANY EXTRA MONEY FORWARD.
WE WERE GOING TO ROLL IT DOWN TO THE NEXT PROJECT ON THE LIST, WHICH WAS UNDER THE LINE.
UM, AND I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY A CONFLICT.
WE DECIDED THAT THAT THOSE WERE OUR SECONDARY CHOICES.
AND SO THERE MIGHT NOT BE A CONFLICT, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK WE ALSO HAVE, UM, MS. FIDRYCH WHO'S THE CHAIR OF THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THERE.
UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT PERHAPS SHE ALSO HAS SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT.
[00:05:01]
WE, WE WERE TALKING AT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ABOUT, UM, TAKING SOME OF THE, UH, CONTINGENCY FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEAR 18, 19 AND 20.AND IT'S GOING TO COME UP TO ABOUT $1.4 MILLION AND MOVING IT FORWARD TO FISCAL YEAR 23.
AND BEFORE EVEN MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH BOARD POLICY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT FORWARD.
ACTUALLY THAT'S COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THIS POLICY.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS POLICY WANTS YOU TO DO.
I DIDN'T HA I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
I, I, WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS MOTION WANT, OR THIS POLICY WANTS YOU TO DO.
THEY WANT YOU, HE WANTS YOU TO ROLL THAT MONEY FORWARD INTO THE CURRENT CYCLE SO THAT IT DOESN'T STAY, YOU KNOW, BACK AS KIND OF A SLUSH FUND, OR IT LOOKS LIKE A SLUSH FUND AND IT LEAVES IT TO SOMEONE ELSE'S DISCRETION ON HOW TO SPEND IT.
THE WHOLE CONCEPT WAS ROLLED FORWARD AND THAT WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO BORROW THAT MONEY CAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE IT.
SO WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED AS EXACTLY IN CONCERT WITH THE INTENT OF THIS, MR. I SEE YOU HAVE YOUR HAND RAISED.
SO I THINK, UM, LET ME JUST REPHRASE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
SO WE, UM, ROLL THIS MONEY FORWARD AND WE STILL HAVE OUR BORROWING LIMIT OR WHATEVER FOR OUR 8% MONEY AT $20 MILLION.
BUT NOW WE HAVE AN EXTRA ONE POINT, WHATEVER IT WAS MILLION DOLLARS TO SPEND ON ITEMS IN THERE.
WE'RE USING IT IN THE 23 TOWARDS THE 23, UM, 8% PROJECTS.
IS THAT THAT'S, IS THAT A CORRECT RESTATEMENT? SO WE'RE NOT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BORROW.
WE'RE JUST ADDING, UM, THIS MONEY FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS, RIGHT? YEAH.
THAT'S EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY INTENDED WAS THAT YOU WOULDN'T BORROW MONEY THAT YOU ALREADY HAD.
RIGHT? SO IF IT'S, FOR EXAMPLE, OR AN EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS 1 MILLION LEFTOVER FROM 2019, AND WE HAD ALREADY BORROWED 20 MILLION FOR OUR CURRENT BOND ISSUANCE, IT WOULD REDUCE OUR BOND ISSUANCE BY A MILLION.
SO WE WOULD ROLL THAT FORWARD TO REDUCE IT.
WOULDN'T BECOME $21 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS.
NOW IT'S STILL REMAIN AT THE 20, BUT IT WOULD REDUCE OUR, OUR ISSUANCE AND I'LL LET THE OPERA, I ATTENDED THOSE OPERATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT THEY INTENDED, BUT MS. FREDERICK, THANK YOU.
UM, SO THAT'S ANOTHER, I WAS GOING TO GO TO THE SECOND HALF OF THIS MOTION, WHICH, WHICH THEY, AND REDUCE THE CURRENT BOND ISSUANCE ACCORDINGLY.
SO, SO THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, IS THAT THE DISCUSSION WAS NOT TO NECESSARILY REDUCE THE 20 MILLION BOND ISSUANCE THAT WE DO FOR 8%.
I MEAN, WE ISSUE THAT 20 MILLION BOND, UM, EVERY YEAR FOR 8%, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE MULTI MULTIMILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF 8% PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE COMPLETED.
UM, SO THE 20TH OR THE 20 MILLION DOESN'T ALLOW FOR ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS TO BE COMPLETED.
SO IF WE DID NOT REDUCE THE BOND ISSUANCE ACCORDINGLY TO WHATEVER MONEY WE'RE ROLLING FORWARD, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS POLICY.
BUT HE IS, THE KEY IS NOT, NOT TO BORROW MONEY THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE.
BUT, BUT IS ALSO THE KEY TO WHAT, AT WHAT POINT, I GUESS, IS THE 20 MILLION, NOT ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE NEEDED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT 20 TO 25, LET'S GO DIRECTLY AT THAT.
THIS IS JUST A FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE.
UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT MAYBE THAT 20 SHOULD MOVE UP TO 25 BECAUSE IT'S BEEN 20 FOR AWHILE, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT TARGET THAN THEN THIS POLICY.
AND THAT'S WHY, UM, I THOUGHT THAT THIS, UM, CONVERSATION
[00:10:01]
WAS ALSO GOING TO BE HAD IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.WISNIEWSKI? UM, WE, WE ACTUALLY MOVED THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING, SO WE SKIPPED IT AT OUR LAST MEETING.
SO, BECAUSE, CAUSE I THINK THAT, THAT, LIKE DAVID JUST SAID, I MEAN, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
UM, BUT IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH, WITH WHAT, UH, WE HAD HOPED TO DO IN THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, I AM HEARING FROM YOU ALL THAT.
IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF BOARD POLICY.
I THINK IF IT, IF IT WAS, IF THE INTENT WAS TO ADD ONTO THE CURRENT BOND ISSUANCE AT 20 AND ADD ON LIKE 1 MILLION OR WHATNOT OF THE, THE UNUSED FUNDS, THEN TECHNICALLY I THINK YES, IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT.
WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, THEN YOU MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE CHANGE THE LIMIT FROM 20 TO WHATEVER.
UH, CAUSE OBVIOUSLY I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE WHERE WE DON'T HAVE EXTRA MONEY LAYING AROUND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT ALL ACCOUNTED FOR.
WE DON'T BORROW MONEY THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
SO I WOULD JUST MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE INCREASE IT FROM 20 TO WHATEVER YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE, UM, PROBABLY OPERATIONS MAY ALREADY BE DOING THIS IS LOOKING AT, UM, YOU KNOW, HISTORICAL SPEND AND HISTORICAL ASKS OF WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE LINE ESSENTIALLY.
UM, CAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S MORE TO, TO IT WHEN, AT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GONNA BE 20, 25 30.
WHAT HAVE YOU, UM, SORRY, MADAM CHAIR.
I SEE THAT YOUR HAND IS RAISED YEAH.
TO, UM, ADDRESSING THIS, UH, SPECIFIC TOPIC.
SO, UM, SO THE PUBLIC'S AWARE TO THE, UM, THE 20 MILLION, UH, THAT WE, THAT WE BORROW EACH YEAR TO DO THESE PROJECTS.
THERE'S A LIMIT TO THAT IT'S 8% OF THE, UH, TOTAL PROPERTY VALUE ASSESSED AND BUFORD COUNTY.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
DO ANY OF YOU GUYS, DO YOU DAVID? UM, I THINK IT'S ABOUT A DOUBLE.
I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER.
I'M PRETTY CERTAIN IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER TOO.
BUT I THINK IN THE PAST IT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED TO US BY OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR.
MAYBE NOT THE MOST CURRENT ONE, THE ONE WE HAD MOST CURRENTLY HILLTOP, BUT I THINK BY COMPASS, I THINK THEY WERE RECOMMENDING THAT WE KEEP IT AT THE 20 AROUND THERE BECAUSE, UH, IT JUST, YOU KNOW, MADE OUR FINANCES LOOK BETTER FOR, YOU KNOW, GETTING BETTER RATES FOR BORROWING, ET CETERA.
SO I THINK IT'S A QUESTION THAT REALLY SHOULD GO TO THE, TO THE, UM, OUR, TO THE COMPASS GROUP, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IS THIS SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER OR NO, IT'S, IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, GOOD FINANCES OR WHATEVER.
UM, I SEE MR. MELVIN CAMPBELL'S HAND IS RAISED.
UM, MY DAUGHTER IS, UH, HOW ARE WE, HOW ARE WE DOING IN TERMS OF THE, THE, THE PERCENT PROJECT WHAT'S, UH, WHAT'S THE COMPLETION RATE? WHAT'S THE LIST LOOK LIKE? AND YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE 20 MILLION? AND THEN I, YOU KNOW, I'D BE WILLING TO DO, AS DAVID SUGGESTED OVER THAT 20 MILLION UP TO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE UP TO DATE, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE WE USE SPENDING ALL OF A LITTLE BIT BACK DOLLARS WITHIN THAT, THAT NEW LIMIT.
THAT'S THAT'S, THAT'S MY THOUGHT.
I DO NEED TO LAY OUT HOW, HOW WE'RE DOING WITH OR 80% PROJECTS THEY KEEP BACKING UP.
THEN WE'RE REALLY NOT SERVING ITS PURPOSE.
IT'S PROBING, UM, FROM ATTENDING THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
I THINK I HEARD, UM, A CONCERN ABOUT IT.
I COULD BE WRONG THAT, UM, SO RIGHT NOW WE, IT'S EASY TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO BORROW $20 MILLION IF WE TAKE THIS.
UM, SO WE PLAN FOR THAT AND IF WE TAKE THIS 1.2 MILLION, PUT IT BACK IN, THEN WE ONLY NEED TO BORROW 19 POINT SOMETHING MILLION.
AND THAT, THAT BECOMES MORE, UM, TROUBLESOME.
I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF THE, UM, ONE OF THE REASONS OR ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD FROM THOSE MEETINGS, BUT LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T ATTEND ALL OF THEM.
[00:15:01]
IS THERE ANY CONCERN THERE MRS. FIDGET? SO, SO, YEAH.SO, SO YES, IT'S KIND OF, UM, THE BACKSTORY TO THIS IS THAT, UM, WE DID HAVE A JOINT, UH, YOU KNOW, FINANCE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING.
AND WE DID TALK ABOUT CLOSING OUT PROJECTS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT HAVING THAT FUN, LIKE DAVID'S DIRECTOR JUST MENTIONED.
UM, WE DID TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT BEING ABLE TO PREDICT WHAT YOUR 8% BORROWING IS GOING TO BE AS IMPORTANT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S 20 MILLION, IT'S NOT 18.2 THIS YEAR, AND IT IS 19.6 NEXT YEAR BECAUSE OF THE, UM, CLOSED OUT IN THE FUNDS THAT ARE THEN ROLLED BACK AND THEN THE BOND IS REDUCED ACCORDINGLY.
SO THERE ARE SOME VARYING, UH, UH, FACTORS THAT PLAY INTO THIS.
I LIKE THE SUGGESTION, AND THIS IS WHY I WAS BRINGING THIS FORWARD JUST BEFORE WE, WE, EVEN FROM THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, TALK ABOUT ROLLING FORWARD THESE FUNDS.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS, UM, THE POLICY WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD BY ALL AND THAT WE, WE ARE IN VIOLATION OF IT.
SO I THINK IF WE DO, IF, IF FINANCE COULD LOOK AT THIS FROM THE FINANCIAL ASPECT AND BRING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION, UM, THIS $20 MILLION FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND HAS BEEN THE BORROWING AMOUNT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, AND IT IS BASED ON THE ASSESSED VALUE OF, OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY, 8% IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE 20 MILLION, BUT WE HAVE LIMITED TO THAT AND TO MR. MEL CAMPBELL'S QUESTION OPEN UP THAT BINDER AND YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THE DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PROJECTS THAT, UM, HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.
AND IT'S IT'S EVERY YEAR WITH THE 20 MILLION, IT'S THE SAFETY AND THE SAFETY AND SECURITY ONES THAT BUBBLE TO THE TOP AS THEY SHOULD.
AND THE OTHER ONES KEEP GETTING PUSHED FURTHER AND FURTHER BACK.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, MR. TROY, I THINK HAS, UH, HAS A VERY VALID POINT, BUT I'D VERY MUCH LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE SAYS ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
UM, WE WERE ADVISED BY HOW FINANCIAL ADVISOR, BEFORE THAT WE SHOULD KEEP IT AT 20 MILLION.
AND SO I THINK MAYBE WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS WAIT AND, AND, AND GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM HIM BEFORE WE DO IT TODAY.
I NEGLECTED TO TAKE MY HAND DOWN.
UM, MS. BOAT, A BOAT RIGHTS HANDS UP AS WELL.
SO MY THOUGHTS WERE JUST WHAT, UM, WHAT EARL JUST SAID.
AND WHAT I SAID EARLIER IS I REALLY THINK WE NEED THIS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO START CHANGING THE, THE, UM, THAT 20 MILLION CEILING THAT'S REALLY NEEDS TO COME FROM OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR NOW.
AND I WAS TRYING TO FIND THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY PROVIDED A FEW YEARS AGO THAT SHOWED HOW LONG WE'VE HAD THE 20 BILLION AS THE CAP.
AND I THINK IT'S, I WOULD GUESS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ABOUT MAYBE FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS, BUT I WAS TRYING TO FIND THAT, AND I THINK I CAN FIND IT IN A FEW MINUTES HERE.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING I DID HAVE MY HAND UP AND I THOUGHT THAT, UM, MS. FREDRICKS COVERED WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY PRETTY WELL.
UM, I WAS JUST GONNA SUGGEST, UM, IN ORDER TO, TO EXPEDITE THIS AND KEEP THIS MOVING, UM, I SERVE ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND I KNOW THIS HAD BEEN MOVED TO OUR NEXT MEETINGS AGENDA.
UM, I CERTAINLY COULD MAKE AN ASK OF, UM, THE COMMITTEE AND OF OUR CFO TO HAVE THE FINANCIAL ADVISORS AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
UM, AND PERHAPS GET SOME QUESTIONS BOUNCED OFF OF THEM AHEAD OF IT COMING BACK TO THE FULL BOARD.
UM, SO IF EVERYBODY, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT, I CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT.
AND I THINK THE REASON, PERHAPS IN THE PAST, WHY THEY HAD RECOMMENDED WE NOT RAISE IT IS BECAUSE OF OUR TOTAL DEBT CAPACITY.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL? MADAM CHAIR? UM, YEAH.
UM, ACTUALLY, YES, I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS FOR FINANCIAL REASONS BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT MY NOTES FROM THIS IS BRIAN DEREK'S PRESENTATION ON APRIL 23RD, 2019, AND THE 8% THEY WERE LIMITING IT TO 20 MILLION ISSUANCE PER YEAR WITH A FOUR YEAR PAYBACK.
[00:20:01]
AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT HIS, HIS DEBT SERVICE STRUCTURE REPORT, YOU GOT 20,000,023, BUT IT ACTUALLY GRADUALLY, HE HAD 22 MILLION IN, UM, 24 ON THIS, ON THIS STRUCTURED REPORT.SO HE WASN'T ANTICIPATING IT GOING UP.
I'LL SHOOT AN EMAIL OVER, UM, TO TRY TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION FOR US AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, UM, AND ASK KIND OF WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT ISSUANCE LOOK LIKE IF IT COULD BE EXPANDED OR WHATNOT? UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE WE CLOSE IT OUT? OKAY.
UM, NEXT ITEM IS F DISCUSSION REGARDING PROCESS OF APPROVAL OF AN INTERPRETATION OF MONITORING INDICATORS OF ELISE.
UM, AND I'M TRYING TO RECALL WHO THIS CAME FROM.
I BELIEVE IN EMAIL, CAME FROM TRICIA.
UM, I KNOW THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE FULL BOARD AS WELL ABOUT KIND OF HOW ARE WE HANDLING THIS? WHAT'S THE PROCESS OF, UM, APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENTS INTERPRETATION OF THE MONITORING INDICATORS.
DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH.
SO I'M LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW TO DO IT MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING.
THERE WERE SOME OES THAT WERE, UM, UH, ACCEPTED FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BUT, UH, WANTED TO BE SENT TO THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FOR SOME INPUT.
SO WE DID THAT AND THEN WE BROUGHT THEM TO THE FULL BOARD AND, UH, SO SOME HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, SOME WERE NOT ACCEPTED.
SO DO THEY GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEE? DO THEY GO RIGHT BACK TO THE SUPERINTENDENT? SHOULD WE PUT ASIDE A WORK SESSION AND DO ALL THE OES AT ONCE INSTEAD OF BRINGING THEM BACK PIECE FIELD MEAL, I'M JUST REALLY TRYING TO FIND A MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE LENGTHY CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING.
NOT, NOT THAT IT'S NOT GOOD TO HAVE THAT LENGTHY CONVERSATION, BUT IT, BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE VERY PRODUCTIVE AT THE TIME MR. STRIPPING CHAIR.
UM, THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE OEM, MY OPINION IS THEY BELONG TO THE SUPERINTENDENT.
SO IF WE DON'T ACCEPT THEM, THEY GO BACK TO THE SUPERINTENDENT AND HE ASKED THE MODIFIED BASED ON THE INPUT WE GAVE HIM.
AND, UH, ON THE, ON THE OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION ABOUT, I AGREE, THIS PIECEMEAL THING, I DON'T THINK THIS IS WORKING TOO WELL.
UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A FOCUS ON IT AND HAVE US ALL GO THROUGH IT.
AND I KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO US.
UM, I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG MEETING AND I KNOW ALL OF US WILL GET FRUSTRATED ABOUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK THAT REALLY IS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT, TO GET THE FULL BOARD TO GO THROUGH AND SAY YES, AND THAT WAY NOBODY CAN QUBITS LATER ON, UM, JUST SEEMS TO BE THE WAY TO DO IT.
THAT THAT'S MY OPINION, BUT THEY BELONG TO THE SUPERINTENDENT.
SO THEY ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR HIM TO MODIFY MADAM CHAIR.
I WAS GONNA SAY THE SAME THING THAT DAVID JUST SAID, AND THAT IS IF PART OF IT OR ALL OF IT, OR WHATEVER, THE BOARD REJECTS THAT BURDEN IS BACK THE SUPERINTENDENT.
IT'S HIS INTERPRETATION THAT WE HAVE TO RELY ON.
I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
UM, I THINK THAT, UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE, I THINK WE'RE GETTING, YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE WERE, WE AGREE WITH THE SUPERINTENDENTS INTERPRETATION, BUT I THINK WE'RE SPENDING, YOU KNOW, GETTING INTO THE WEEDS, I GUESS MAYBE THE BEST WORD OR THE NITTY GRITTY AND ESPECIALLY CAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'RE REALLY, UM, HAVING HIM DO THIS.
UH, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE HIM.
THIS IS MY OPINION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S EFFECTIVE AS TRISHA'S ALREADY POINTED OUT.
LIKE WE BROUGHT THEM FORWARD FROM THE OPERATIONS TO THE, TO THE FULL BOARD.
AND THEN BASICALLY IT'S THE SAME DISCUSSION AGAIN.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS NEED TO BE PREPARED BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD MEETING, I THINK IT SHOULD BE UNDER CONSENT AGENDA.
AND IF A BOARD MEMBER THINKS THAT, OH, NO, WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS ONE FURTHER.
THEY CAN PULL IT OFF FROM CONSENT AGENDA AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT FURTHER.
BUT I THINK A BIG PART OF IT IS I THINK THE BURDEN ON US IS BEING PREPARED AND HAVING READ THROUGH THESE CAREFULLY BEFORE WE GET TO THE BOARD MEETING, NOT JUST WINGING IT AT THE BOARD MEETING AND HAVING A DISCUSSION AND ALL
[00:25:01]
THAT.AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST SEE IT BEING SO BURDENSOME TO DO, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, AN ALL DAY AFFAIR, SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OR SOMETHING.
I JUST THINK WHITTLING AWAY AT IT LITTLE BY LITTLE IS PROBABLY BETTER.
AND WHY NOT IN A YEAR FROM NOW? I KNOW DICK FEELS THE SAME WAY.
CAUSE I THINK YOU SAID THIS PUBLICLY TOO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE OKAY IF A YEAR FROM NOW THIS ONE, OH, YOU KNOW, OH, THIS SECTION OF IT DIDN'T WORK TOO WELL.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY A BETTER WAY TO DO IT.
I'D SAY JUST LET'S GET THEM IN PLACE AND YOU KNOW, AS BEST WE CAN AND WORK WITH THEM, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA AFTER A YEAR HAS GONE BY OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT NEEDS TWEAKING AND WHAT DOESN'T NEED TWEAKING.
HEY, UM, YEAH, I KIND OF JUST HAVE AN OPINION TOO, BUT I WAS JUST CONFUSED.
I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE POLICY MAKING AND I KNOW YOU GUYS DID JUST TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF WORK AND RESEARCH AND MEDIA, AND SO I'M, I'M COMING AT IT ALL FRESH AND BUSHY-TAILED, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP IN OPERATIONS IS IF THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY THREE PEOPLE ON A, ON A COMMITTEE.
AND IF SOMEONE IS ASKING FOR A POLICY TO BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY THAT MIGHT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE POLICY, MY THOUGHTS ARE, I GUESS IT WOULD THEN JUST GO TO THE BOARD FOR THAT'S KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED IS IT WENT TO THE BOARD FOR A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE BETTER.
CAUSE THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WE HAD IN THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE IS WE'D GOTTEN THIS POLICY FROM FINANCE TO OPERATIONS.
DID IT NEED TO GO TO POLICY BEFORE IT WENT TO THE FULL BOARD? SO I DON'T KNOW.
IT MIGHT BE WORTH LOOKING AT IF THERE'S A WAY TO KIND OF STREAMLINE PROCESS OR GET TO BUILD CONSENSUS ON IT.
CAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE SITUATIONS, I THINK, WHERE THE INTERPRETATION IS VALID, BUT PEOPLE MIGHT SAY, WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT.
AND THEN YOU GET BACK INTO POLICY.
SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.
IF THERE'S A WAY LIKE MS. FIDRYCH SAID TO JUST SORT OF BE EFFICIENT ABOUT IT AND, AND HAVE CONSENSUS, I THINK WE'LL BE GOOD.
IT'S, IT'S UM, IT'S A BIT OF A STICKY SITUATION JUST BECAUSE SOME OF, AND I THINK WHEN WE GET INTO THE INTERPRETATION AND THE, WELL, THAT'S NOT HOW WE MET FOR IT TO BE.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME POLICIES THAT CAME AND WERE NEW, UM, OUT OF FINANCE COMMITTEE, UM, AND CAME FROM DIRECTLY FROM THE RECOMMENDATION OF SENIOR STAFF.
SO SOME OF THOSE CAME TO US BECAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE NEEDED THOSE.
UM, SO THEY CAME THROUGH FINANCE AND THEN WENT TO POLICY AND THEN WENT TO THE FULL BOARD.
UM, SO IN CASES LIKE THAT, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER IS.
QUADS AND THAT PUTTING THESE ON CONSENT AGENDA AND YOU KNOW, US DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND REVIEWING THEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING IS WHAT MAKES MOST EFFICIENT SENSE.
UM, AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE DON'T AGREE ON AND THEN WE'LL JUST PULL IT OFF AND DISCUSS IT.
UM, THE ONE THING I DO SEE THAT IS, IS KIND OF LINGERING OR REMAINING OUT THERE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF MONITORING INDICATORS IS THE, UM, THE MONITORING DATES OR THE FREQUENCY AREAS.
AND I'M NOT SURE, UM, THE WORK PLAN AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK IS, IS THAT GOING TO BE A WHOLE NOTHER DISCUSSION OF MAKING SURE THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE WORK PLAN OR IS THAT ALREADY THEN JUST THE INPUT BY DEFAULT? UM, ROBIN, YOU MAY KNOW, UM, THAT MONITORING, UM, WOULD GO ONTO THE WORK PLAN.
SO THAT BECOMES THE WORK PLAN.
SO HOWEVER THEY DETERMINE, AND THE BOARD SAYS, I WANT TO SEE THIS, UM, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, A FINANCIAL REPORT, WE KNOW THAT'S QUARTERLY.
SO THAT IS ON THE WORK PLAN TO COME QUARTERLY.
BUT IF, UM, THE FOYA REPORT, THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT TO BE, UM, EVERY MONTH.
SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE AUTOMATICALLY THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY REQUESTED THAT COMES ON THE WORK PLAN THAT OTHER MONITORING, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, UM, DR.
RODRIGUEZ RECOMMENDATIONS SAYING THAT THIS SHOULD COME BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHEN TEST DATE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW WHEN TEST DATES ARE AVAILABLE, THEY KNOW WHEN, SO THOSE WOULD COME FROM THEM TO PUT ON THE WORK PLAN AND AT THE WORKS AT THE WORK SESSION IN AUGUST, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE SUPPOSED TO APPROVE THAT.
SO MAYBE THAT'S WHEN YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD SIT THERE AND SAY, YOU AGREE, OR YOU DON'T AGREE, OR WHATEVER AT THAT TIME, DR.
RODRIGUEZ, UH, INDICATED THAT HE'S GOING TO BRING FORWARD THAT AUGUST WORK SESSION, HIS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WORK PLAN JUST AS, AS ROBIN EXPLAINED TOO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HE KNOWS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE TEST SCORES BECOME AVAILABLE, ET CETERA.
SO I THINK HE'S GOING TO GIVE US, UH, UH, UH, A REASONABLE, UM, CALENDAR AND WE CAN THEN TWEAK
[00:30:01]
IT IF WE NEED TO.AND, UM, SO ROBIN, YOU JUST MENTIONED FOYAS MONTHLY, BUT ISN'T FOIL QUARTERLY, QUARTERLY, VERY GOOD.
SOME NEW ONES ON THERE TOO, THAT, YOU KNOW, TO, HE PROBABLY KNOWS WHEN THOSE CONTRACTS AND WHEN THOSE THINGS COME IN, SO, OKAY.
UM, SO, UM, DOES ANYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL BOARD ON, UM, WHAT WE THINK THE PROCESS OF APPROVAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE? OR, UM, YOU JUST WANT ME TO REPORT BACK KIND OF WHAT SOME OF THE IDEAS WERE? NOTHING MS. ROBIN.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD AGREE WITH, UH, PUTTING THE ITEMS ON CONSENT AGENDA AND, UH, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON PEOPLE TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK.
I DO THINK THAT, UM, MOST LIKELY THE ITEMS WILL BE PULLED OFF.
UM, I THINK THAT, UM, CHANCES ARE PRETTY GOOD THAT, THAT ANYTHING WE PUT ON CONSENT AGENDA REGARDING THE OES WILL BE PULLED OFF SO THAT I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE A FEUDAL ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.
UM, I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, WE ARE SO MUCH FURTHER AHEAD NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE FROM MY, MY IDEA, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE HAD THE PES, THERE WASN'T ANY INTERPRETATION, THE INTERPRETATION WAS THE REPORT WE GOT.
SO NOW I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE MUCH FURTHER AHEAD.
AND PART OF ME IS KIND OF LIKE, UM, I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD, AS MUCH AS WE CAN LET IT PLAY OUT.
AND THEN IF THERE ARE, UM, ISSUES AS A PLACE OUT, WE MAKE NOTE OF THAT AND, AND ADDRESS THEM AT THAT TIME OR ADDRESS THEM LATER.
BUT THAT WAS JUST MY THOUGHTS, MR. SHERMAN CHAIR, I MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO THE FULL BOARD, THE INTERPRETATIONS GO ON AFTER.
ANY DISCUSSION ROBIN, DID YOU GET ALL THAT TYPING? I MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO THE FULL BOARD THAT THEY ALWAYS GO ON CONSENT AGENDA AFTER COMING OUT OF COMMITTEE, IS THAT, OH, HE INTERPRETATIONAL INTERPRETATIONS.
COMING OUT OF POLICY COMMITTEE, YOU GOT TO WORK AD POLICY, COME OUT OF FINANCE.
NO, BUT YOU STARTED OUT ROBIN STARTED OUT THE, UM, NO, I SHOULDN'T.
WELL, THAT'S A POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMEND, IS THAT THAT'S EXACTLY.
HE INTERPRETATIONS GO ON CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, AFTER COMING OUT OF COMMITTEE, WAS THAT IT? DAVID AND KATHY.
AND THEN, UM, ARE WE JUST LEAVING IT UP TO THE SUPERINTENDENT TO ROUTE IT TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE INTERPRETATIONS? YES.
I THINK, WELL, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN HAPPENING, RIGHT? YEAH.
JUST MAKING SURE WE'RE STILL FOLLOWING UP.
GLADS? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING THAT KATHY DID, BUT YEAH, THAT IS THE WAY IT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT IS ROUTING THEM TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE AND HIS STAFF.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? NO HANDS I'LL CALL THE VOTE BY SAYING
[00:35:01]
AYE.SO NEXT ITEM IS DISCUSSION OF FUTURE MEETING DATES.
UM, ROBIN, DO WE HAVE THE DATE AVAILABLE IN AUGUST? I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THAT YOU HAVE THAT WORK SESSION.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT? THE WORK SESSION IS THE 27TH.
UM, YOU HAVE, UM, THE 9TH OF AUGUST, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE IT ON A MONDAY AFTERNOON, JUST WONDERING IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING THAT WILL HAVE BEEN ROUTED TO US.
WELL, UM, NO, I'LL HAVE THE HAND, I'LL HAVE THE HANDBOOK, UM, FOR YOU SO THAT YOU COULD SEE IT BEFORE WE HAVE THE WORK SESSION.
CAN, UM, IS THE NIGHT AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE EARLIER ON, IN THE DAY OR IS THAT A PROBLEM? UM, YEAH.
AFTER, WELL, YEAH, I MEAN THEIR WHOLE WEEK.
WITH THIS, THIS MUCH NOTICE I CAN MAKE IT PRETTY MUCH ANYTIME.
I JUST NEED A COUPLE OF WEEKS NOTICE.
SO I AM IN TOWN THEN I'M OUT OF TOWN A LOT IN AUGUST, BUT I'M IN TOWN ON THE NINTH.
SO MR.
OKAY, ROBIN, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? YES, THERE'S NOTHING ON THAT DAY.
SO WE HAVE PO YOU WANTED 1130 OR 12.
CAUSE HOPEFULLY WE WON'T RUN TOO LATE AND RUN THROUGH LUNCH.
AND THEN WE'LL JUST ROLL, WHATEVER COMES AT US IN THE NEXT, COMING WEEKS TO THAT DATE.
IF NO ONE HAS ANYTHING ELSE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I MOVE WE ADJOURN.