[00:00:10]
IF A COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER SINCE THE AD HOC SELF EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING, LIKE TO BEGIN WITH PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE ALL RISE.
WELL, I DO HAVE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
I MEAN, I HAVE THE STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE JUSTICE FOR ALL, AND OUR AGENDA NEEDS TO BE APPROVED.
I KNOW WE APPROVE TODAY'S AGENDA.
I JUST MADE A MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE AGENDA.
AND THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION ALL IN FAVOR.
WHAT WAS ZERO PUBLIC COMMENTS? THERE IS NONE APPROVAL OF TERMERS 25TH COMMITTEE MEETING.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 25 AD HOC AD HOC SELF-EVALUATION MINUTES.
DISCUSSION OF BOARD SELF EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS.
I THINK WE LEFT OFF MAYBE HAVE DISCUSSED THE FIRST EIGHT, BUT TWO OF THEM WERE WELL FIRST SEVEN, SEVEN, EIGHT, EIGHT, RIGHT.
EIGHT AND TWO OF THEM WERE UNRESOLVED OR WE HAD THE, IT WAS THE REWORDING, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THOSE TWO WERE FIVE AND SIX, I BELIEVE.
SIX OR SEVEN, SIX AND 705 IS FIVE AND SIX.
YEAH, BUT I'M HERE, BUT THEY ALL FIVE.
READY TO MOVE ON TO THAT NEXT PAGE? NO, LET'S GO THROUGH THOSE NOW.
MY RECOLLECTION OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING WAS, UM, THAT I OFFERED TO REWORD THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FIVE, THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FIVE, WHICH I GUESS IS ACTUALLY NUMBER FOUR.
THE SEEING THAT WE DELETED THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FOUR, CORRECT.
SO I OFFERED TO WORK ON THE WORDING OF THE CURRENT NUMBER FOUR.
ONE NUMBER IS SHOWN EACH TIME.
I'LL JUST USE THE WORDS I OFFERED TO REWORD THE STATEMENT OR THE QUESTION THAT SAID DID BOARD MEMBERS REFRAIN FROM MONOPOLIZING, THE MEETING WITH THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDA, FOR EXAMPLE, ASKING FOR ITEMS THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF STAFF PREPARATION TIME IN MY NOTES.
I SAID THAT I OFFERED TO REWORD THAT ONE.
BITCH ONES THAT I CAN'T, I DON'T SEE IT NOW.
THAT'S THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FIVE.
SO THAT SHOULD BECOME NUMBER FOUR.
[00:05:01]
OFFER, UM, A REVISION TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ALL RIGHT.WHEN I WAS, UH, ANALYZING THIS QUESTION, UM, I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET TO THE ROOT OF WHAT THE QUESTION WAS AND, AND, AND PAUSE IT IN A MORE POSITIVE FRAME.
SO I CAME UP WITH THE WORDING TO REPLACE IT.
UM, ACTUALLY I BROKE IT DOWN AND THOUGHT IT NEEDED TWO QUESTIONS.
SO I'M GOING TO SUBMIT FOR CONSIDERATION THE FIRST QUESTION, UM, BOARD MEMBERS ENGAGED IN PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS ON AGENDA TOPICS.
THERE'S ONE OF MY SUGGESTIONS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION AND CHANGE IT TO THE STATEMENT SINCE WE'RE PUTTING THESE IN STATEMENT FORM THAT BOARD MEMBERS ENGAGED IN PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS ON AGENDA TOPICS.
I THINK THAT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE QUESTION WHEN IT TALKED ABOUT REFRAIN FROM MONOPOLIZED IN THE MEETING, I THINK THEY'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS.
THEN I SUGGEST SINCE THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL, FOR EXAMPLE, IT SAID ASKING FOR ITEMS THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF STAFF PREPARATION TIME, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE COULD ADD SOMETHING THAT SAYS BOARD MEMBERS APPROPRIATELY SEEK ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENT OR PERSONAL CONCERNS.
I DON'T GET IT WHEN YOU SAY CONCERNS.
WELL, THE, WHAT, WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO REPLACE, UH, MEL IS ORIGINAL.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THOUGH? SUCH AS WELL, IT, IT'S ALSO A CONTINUATION OF THE RE UH, THE PERSONAL AGENDA COMMENT IN THAT ORIGINAL QUESTION.
SO IT'S JUST, UH, FOR, FOR CONSIDERATION ROBIN, UM, PERHAPS I, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO EMAIL OR PUT THIS IN CHAT SO YOU CAN SEE THE WORDING AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT UP AND EVERYBODY CAN DECIDE IF THAT'S WHAT, OKAY.
I BELIEVE ALL DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT AND PRODUCTIVE.
SO I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT WE BE A LITTLE MORE POINTED REGARDING BOARD MEMBERS STAYED ON TOPIC.
SO I'M SENDING THIS IN CHAT RIGHT NOW.
SO HERE ARE LET'S SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT AND THEN MAYBE WE COULD, UM, LET'S SEE.
AND THEN, UM, OKAY, SO THAT'S IN CHAT RIGHT NOW.
SO WOULD YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID, UH, BOARD MEMBERS STAYED ON TOPIC AND THIS WAY WE'RE NOT PASSING ANY JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER THEIR DISCUSSION OR INPUT IS, UH, WHAT'S THE WORD YOU USE? UM, ADAPTIVE.
WE'RE NOT PASSING ANY JUDGMENT ON THAT.
WE'RE JUST SAYING THEY'RE STAYING ON POINT.
AND, UM, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE EVALUATE PRODUCTIVE.
I MEAN, EVEN, YOU KNOW, BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS CAN BE PRODUCTIVE IN ANY CONVERSATION AND CAN BRING ABOUT CHANGE.
SO, YEAH, I THINK IT'S TOO VAGUE, PRODUCTIVE, BUT I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL SUGGESTION TO ZERO IN ON WHETHER BOARD MEMBERS ARE, UM, STAYING ON TOPIC.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT ANOTHER COMPONENT TO THIS YOU'VE MADE IT TWO PRONGS.
I WOULD MAKE IT THREE PROMPTS.
UM, THE CHAIR OR THE, THE OFFICER OFFICIATING OVER THE MEETING, UM, UH, PREVENTED ANY INDIVIDUAL FROM MONOPOLIZING THE MEETING, BECAUSE I THINK WE DISCUSSED IT OUR LAST MEETING THAT YOU, YOU CAN'T EVEN SPEAK UNLESS YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, LET ALONE MONOPOLIZE A MEETING.
AND I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT TO THE ROLE OF WHOEVER IS OFFICIATING.
IT COULD BE THE CHAIR COULD BE THE VICE CHAIR, UH, IF THE CHAIR IS ABSENT.
SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE THE THIRD PRONG TO THIS ONE.
I, YOU KNOW, TEND TO DISAGREE WITH THE FIRST PART OF YOUR PREMISE, JOANNE MANLEY, BECAUSE I THINK PRODUCTIVE IN THIS CASE MEANS TO STAY ON TOPIC AND THE DISCUSSION IS IRRELEVANT.
[00:10:01]
DON'T THINK IT MEANS A PLUS OR MINUS AND, AND, UM, STAY ON TOPIC WOULD BE, I MEAN, GENERIC, IF WHEN YOU GET OFF TOPIC, THAT'S PUTS IT BACK ON A CHAIR AGAIN.SO I THINK THIS, THIS IS INTENDED TO BE PLACED ON THE BOARD MEMBERS IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY DO HAVE THE PERMISSION TO SPEAK.
BUT, BUT NOW HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SAY WHAT'S PRODUCTIVE THAT WE NOT, WE NOT, CAUSE IT WAS PRODUCTIVE IN TERMS OF JUDGMENT, JUDGMENT HAD GONE GOING TO BE, OR THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGE READ IS 90% OF THE TIME, WHILE WE TALKING THINGS THAT ARE PRODUCTIVE, THEY SUPERCELL IN THE TIME WHERE WE TALK, HE THINKS WITHOUT GLASS, THAT'S OUR WAY VALUATION OR MY MIND ARE WE SPINNING OUR WHEELS OR NOT.
AND IF YOU SAY, NOBODY CAN EVALUATE THAT, THEN WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME WITH THIS PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE IT IN TERMS OF OUR OWN PERSONAL THOUGHT PROCESS ON WHAT HAPPENS.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
BUT I THINK IT'S A LITTLE MORE MEASURABLE, UM, AND LESS OBJECTIVE, IF YOU WILL, TO SAY BOARD MEMBERS STAYED ON TOPIC, EVEN THAT GETS OBJECTIVE.
SOMETIMES THERE'S LITTLE STUFF AROUND THE PERIPHERY THAT MAY PERTAIN TO IT, OR MAY NOT.
AND THAT'S LEFT UP TO YOU, UM, JUDGMENT.
BUT I THINK IF YOU, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE, IF THE IDEA TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS TO RUN, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, AN ORGANIZED MEETING, OKAY.
I THINK YOU NEED ALL THREE OF WHAT TRISHA SAID.
BOARD MEMBERS NEED TO STAY ON POINT, THE PERSON OFFICIATING OVER THE MEETING NEEDS TO ENSURE THAT NO, NO ONE INDIVIDUAL MONOPOLIZES THE MEETING AND TRISHA, I DON'T, I DON'T RECALL YOUR THIRD POINT, BUT I DO BELIEVE IT WAS RELEVANT.
UM, I JUST PUT IT IN CHAT, JOANNE.
YOU OKAY? YEAH, IT LOOKS GOOD.
THERE'S TWO CONSTITUENT OR PERSONAL CONCERNS, PERSONAL CONCERNS IN THIS CASE, ME AND BOARD BUSINESS, A PERSONAL CONCERN.
I'M CO WHAT'S THAT MEAN, WELL, MEL, WHAT I, WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS TASKED TO DO WAS TO TAKE THIS QUESTION AND TRY TO REWORD IT BASED ON, ON ITS INHERENT MEANING.
SO I WAS TRYING TO GO TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION AND IT SAID, UH, DEBORRA MEMBERS REFRAINED FROM MONOPOLIZE AND MEETING WITH THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDA.
SO I WAS THINKING ALONG THE LINES THAT BOARD MEMBERS BRING FORWARD CONCERNS FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS OR SOME OF THEIR OWN CONCERNS.
AND SO, BUT THERE IS A, A PROCESS THERE'S A WAY IN WHICH TO DO THAT.
SO I THOUGHT FOR A SELF EVALUATION, DID WE APPROPRIATELY SEEK ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENT OR OWN PERSONAL CONCERNS? NO, I, YOU KNOW, MY UPLINE, WHEN YOU PUT PERSONAL CONCERNS IN THERE, YOU ARE PUTTING IN SOMETHING THAT, THAT ORIGINAL STATEMENT IS TRYING TO, TO MISDIRECT.
SO WOULD YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO, I MEAN, DO YOU, DO YOU OBJECT TO THE PREMISE OF A PERSONAL CONCERN OR THE WORDING OF PERSONAL CONCERN, UH, UM, TO THE PREMISE OF PERSONAL CONCERNS? UH, CAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY ATTENDED THEY PERSONAL AGENDA.
DEFINITELY A PERSONAL AGENDA, PERSONAL CONCERNS.
MAY I OFFER A SUGGESTION AND ALSO MALWARE, I THINK WILL HAD HIS HAND UP HERE FOR ME.
WELL, FIRST, UH, I HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE PART, WITH THE PERSONAL CONCERN BECAUSE AS A BOARD MEMBER, UH, EVERYTHING THAT WE DID, EVERYTHING THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, UH, I MEAN EVERY CONCERN, EVERY CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS, UH, NINE TIMES OUT OF 10, IT'S VALID IN SOME SHAPE OR FORM BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE REMIND THAT WE ARE TRUSTEES OF BEAUTIFUL QUIET SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SO TINTO SAID, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, HANDING, IT HAPPENS WITH BRIEF KIND OF SCHOOL DISTRICT IS OUR, AS OUR RESUME SAYING THAT YOU JUST STAY IN YOUR LANE AND MIND YOUR BUSINESS.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE KIND OF SCHOOL, YOUR GIFT, IF I'M CORRECT THAT I BELIEVE AS A TRUSTEE AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON, WE'VE GOT A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS OUR BUSINESS REGARDS TO NO MATTER WHAT IT IS TO SOME DEGREE THAT'S OUR BUSINESS.
SO I, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT I CAN'T GO ALONG WITH THAT.
SO HOW WOULD YOU REWORD IT, MR. SMITH?
[00:15:02]
I WILL LEAVE THAT OUT.I WILL EVEN PUT THAT IN THERE.
I SEE THAT, THAT THAT'S HAVING NO, NO, NO TEETH, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S TOO MUCH POLICING.
I AGREE WITH, UM, MRS. UH, MRS. I BELIEVE WITH MRS. ARSHAD THAT THE, THE PUT THE, THE PERSON WHO'S RUNNING, THE MEETING, ALL THE OFFICERS SHOULD CONTROL THAT BECAUSE THERE'VE BEEN TIMES WHERE I CAN REMEMBER IN THE MEDIA AS AN OFFICER WHERE I'VE SAID, MAN, SHABBY, THAT THAT'S THAT'S OUT OF ORDER OR SO.
AND SO, UH, I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE CHAIR JOB.
THAT'S THAT? THAT'S THAT'S THAT IS THE SOLE FOCUS OF HAVING THE PERSON.
WHY SHOULD WE PICK A CHAIR? IF THE CHAIR CAN'T RUN THE MEETING AND THAT'S THE SOLE THAT'S THE, THE CHAIR HAS TO GAVEL.
THE CHAIR SAYS THE CHEERLEADER KNOWLEDGE, THE PERSON TO SPEAK.
I THINK THAT THAT, THAT WE BEGIN TO OVERLAP POSITIONS WHEN WE STARTED MAKING SOME OF, SOME OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS.
I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR WORDING.
I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY.
WHAT IF WE USE, UM, WHAT IF WE SUBSTITUTE THE WORDS PERSONAL, UM, CONCERNS WITH BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, UM, AND ALSO THEN ADD VERBIAGE THAT SAYS, THAT ALIGNS WITH POLICY BECAUSE OUR POLICY DOES LAY OUT HOW BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO SUBMIT REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.
JOANNE, COULD YOU CHANGE THAT? JUST, UM, LET'S CHANGE PERSONAL.
LET ME GO BACK INTO CHAT, BEAR WITH ME HERE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT ADDRESSES MR. SMITH'S CONCERN, BUT ONCE WE PUT IT IN THERE, UM, I MEAN, READ IT, IT MIGHT APPROPRIATELY SEEK ANSWERS TO, UM, AND ANSWERS TO, UH, CONSTITUENT, UH, QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ALONG WITH WHEN I'M IN.
IF I'M GOING TOO FAST, TELL ME, UM, BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.
I LOST YOU CAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU ARE.
ARE YOU ON THE FIRST ONE OR THE SECOND ONE I'M LOOKING AT TRISHA SECOND OR MEMBERS APPROPRIATELY SEEK ANSWERS.
SO HERE'S WHAT WOULD MEMBERS APPROPRIATELY SEEK ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENT QUESTIONS SLASH CONCERNS? ALONG WITH THAT BOARD MEMBER, WE MUST INFORMATION CONSISTENT WITH BOARD POLICIES.
SO WE DO HAVE A COLISEUM PLACE THAT GIVES US, UH, A STRUCTURE FOR HOW WE BRING FORWARD CONSTITUENT CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS, HOW BOARD MEMBERS BRING THEM FORWARD AND THIS, UM, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TOUCHES ON THAT.
WHAT I APPRECIATE MOST OF WHAT YOU DID WAS YOU GOT RID OF THAT INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE ABOUT AGENDAS IT'S INFLAMMATORY, AND IT ASSUMES CERTAIN THINGS, NEGATIVE THINGS, WHICH ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE.
SO YOU THINK PERSONAL CONCERNS IS A LIGHTER TOUCH? HIM DOES NOT CREATE AN INFLAMMATION.
I GO WITH EITHER ONE, A HURDLE.
I THINK GIRL, MAN, WHAT'S UP? YES.
HOW ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HOW THE BOARD MEMBERS BEHAVIOR, OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT INFORMATION CONCERNING OUR CONSTITUENCY FOR ME? IF, IF SOMEONE ASKS ME A QUESTION, CONSTITUENTS ASKED ME A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING OR THEY HAVING A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING.
I WOULDN'T IT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT.
I DON'T WANT TO FURTHER OUR BOARD MEMBERS, UNLESS IT'S NOT A PERSONAL EARL, THAT'S JUST NOT A PERSONAL QUESTION.
THE CONSTITUENCY MIGHT ACTUALLY, IT MIGHT BE A, A GENERAL CONSTITUENT QUESTION IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO BRING IT THROUGH THE BOARD.
IT MAY NOT BE ANYTHING SPECIFIC.
AND THE VISUAL MIGHT BE A BIG BOARD CONCERN THAT THEY WANT TO KNOW.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THINK THAT IT SHOULD GO TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FIRST, NOT AS, AS POLICY DIRECTED.
I MEAN, IT WAS SOMETHING YOU ALL, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD THEM, WE ALL SHOULD DO THIS AND SHE'LL DO THAT.
[00:20:01]
DIRECTED, THAT WAS SUPERINTENDENT DON'T TO DO IT.SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT I'LL DO A REFERENDUM NUMBER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR YOU'RE BUILDING A SCHOOL HERE AND NOT THERE, THINGS LIKE THAT LACK OF CONCERN.
BUT I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FIRST, IF A PARENT HAS A CONCERN OR POSITION OR HABITS CONCERN, THEN I THINK SUPERINTENDENT CAN DO SOMETHING TO BRING TO THE BOARD.
IF YOU READ IT, I MEAN, IT COVERS THAT ALSO.
IT'S JUST YOU DOING THE APPROPRIATE THING, WHATEVER THAT THING IS.
UM, I THINK THAT THE REWORDING, UH, IS APPROPRIATE.
HOWEVER, UM, QUESTION NUMBER SIX NOW, BECAUSE WE'RE ANSWERING IT ON A SCALE MIGHT BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT WE'RE ASSESSING THERE.
WE'RE ASSESSING BOARD MEMBERS APPROPRIATELY SEE ANSWERS TO CONSTITUENT AND ALONG WITH, SO I THINK THEY SHOULD BE BROKEN IT JUST TO, I AGREE.
UM, SO I WOULD PUT A PERIOD AFTER CONCERNS AND THEN THE NEXT STATEMENT WOULD BE BOARD MEMBERS, REQUESTED BOARD MEMBERS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IS CONSISTENT WITH BOARD POLICIES.
SO THAT WAY WE'RE AT WE'RE ANSWERING BOTH NOT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO RATE SOMETHING THAT HAS TWO SECTIONS TO IT.
THAT, UM, THAT, WHAT DOES NUMBER SIX OVERLAP NUMBER FIVE AND THEN SINCE, UM, NO.
UM, I GOT MY NUMBERS MIXED UP NOW, BUT THE ONE WE JUST ADDRESSED, YOU WANT TO SEE THE WHITE? YEAH.
I'M TRYING TO DO IN THREE AND FIVE AND SIX AND TIES ARE PART OF IT.
I THINK JOANNE HAS THAT AS A STATEMENT ON THAT.
TRICIA, IN THE, IN RESPECT TO THE FIRST ITEM YOU BROUGHT FORWARD ABOUT STAYING, UM, LET ME OPEN UP CHAT, UH, ENGAGING IN PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS.
AND I SUGGEST IT STAYING ON POINT.
I, I MAY LOOK AT NUMBER FOUR ON OUR LIST AND THAT BASICALLY SAYS THAT.
DID, DID BOARD MEMBERS STAY ON POINT ON TOPIC? UM, SO I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY, UM, EDITS TO YOUR COMMENT, UM, BECAUSE IT EVIDENTLY IT WAS ALREADY THERE.
UM, AND I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON EARL EARL'S COMMENTS.
WE'RE NOT TAKING THE SUPERINTENDENT OUT OF THE EQUATION.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ENSURE THAT BOARD MEMBERS FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCESS.
WHEN COMMUNITY, WHEN CONSTITUENTS REACH OUT TO US, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT INFORMATION? YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO TRY TO SOLVE IT OURSELVES.
WE HANDED ON AT THE SUPERINTENDENT.
AND I THINK THAT THESE ARE JUST REITERATING THAT PROCESS.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN DO IT BY AN EMAIL.
WE COULD DO IT BY A PHONE CALL.
WE COULD DO IT AT A BOARD MEETING, BUT THAT IS THE PROCESS.
AND THAT'S HOW I BELIEVE OUR BOARD POLICIES DIRECTIVE.
SO, UM, DOES THAT HELP? YEAH, THE UPSTAIRS, IT SAYS THAT A LOT OF DAYS, ALMOST EVERYTHING WE BRING UP ABOUT ALL THE CONSTITUENCY WE BRING UP IN OUR MEETINGS, HE WOULDN'T DO IT.
IT MIGHT BE DIRECTED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT IT'S DONE IN THE MEETING.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF MR. SMITH, IF, UM, MR. CAMPBELL KNEW, UH, THAT THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE REALLY DISCUSSING AND THAT'S THE PROCESS WE'RE ENDORSING HERE.
GRAND BULL EARL THAT'S FIVE AND PAY.
UM, I'M HAVING A LITTLE DIFFICULTY FOLLOWING THE, THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENT.
SO JOANNE, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT NUMBER FOUR, THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE SCREEN AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE DELETED THAT NUMBER FOUR.
[00:25:01]
DELETED THAT.SO GET TO THE POINT AND THEIR COMMENTS I HAVE ON MY PAPER COPY.
UM, TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS DELETED.
UH, BUT I THINK IT'S RELEVANT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DELETED IT.
MIGHT'VE BEEN A SPLIT VOTE ON THAT.
AND THE MOTION FAILED AS A RESULT.
I THINK COMMITTEE MIGHT'VE BEEN, IS THAT THE CASE? ROBIN? IT WAS A TWO AND TWO.
WELL, I ALSO THINK WE DECIDED THAT THAT RAN UNDER NUMBER THREE BOARD MEETINGS WERE RUN EFFICIENT.
AND THEN YOU HAVE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT CONCERNS.
YOU CHANGE YOUR WORDING, RIGHT? ADD MEMBERS, PRESENT CONCERNS.
ON MY RECOMMENDATIONS, ROBIN ARE IN PLACE OF THAT NUMBER.
CURRENT NUMBER FOUR, THAT IS ON THE SCREEN CURRENT RIGHT NOW WHERE IT SAYS BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT COOK CONCERNS.
THAT THAT'S THE ONE I SAID I WOULD REWORK AND BRING BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS THE NEXT ONE MYSELF.
BUT ANYWAY, I THOUGHT IT WAS NUMBER FIVE.
IT WAS, IT WAS NUMBER FIVE ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
BUT NUMBER FOUR, WHEN WE TOOK OUT THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FOUR.
SO WE REPLACED IT WITH BOARD MEMBERS, PRESENTS CONCERNS.
AND, AND, AND NOW THAT I KNOW, I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE REWORDING FOR THE NUMBER FOUR.
NO, WE COME TO AGREEMENT ON THAT.
WE TOOK A VOTE, BUT I SAID, HEY, LET ME JUST DO THIS.
LET ME COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE WITH, WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO REWORD THAT.
AND SO THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT NUMBER FOUR ON YOUR OTHER DOCUMENT, ROBIN, WHERE YOUR CURRENT NUMBER FOUR OR ON THIS DOCUMENT? ON THE SCREEN, THE NUMBER FIVE.
SO THIS THAT I'M PUTTING UP ON SCREEN, TAKE NUMBER FOUR, RACE NUMBER FOUR.
AND THEN NUMBER FIVE, EVERYTHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY, FIVE.
NOW NUMBER FOUR, FIVE AND SIX WAS THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FIVE BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE QUESTIONS, CORRECT? YEP.
SO WE AGREED TO CHANGE FIVE OH FOUR AND SIX, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX ON THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN NUMBER ON THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FOUR IS GONE.
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FIVE HAS GONE RIGHT TO THE NEW WORDINGS.
THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FIVE IS NOW, UM, BEEN BROKEN DOWN TO FOUR OR FIVE AND SIX.
AND NUMBER SIX, I DID NOT WORK ON NUMBER SIX, ORIGINAL NUMBER SIX YET, WHICH IS THAT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE ORIGINAL NUMBER SIX YET.
THE SAME THING YOU HAVE THERE.
THIS IS THIS, THIS IS THE ORIGINAL ONE.
AND YOU ALL SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU WERE GOING TO WORK ON REWORDING THE ORIGINAL NUMBER SIX AND THE ORIGINAL NUMBER SEVEN.
RIGHT? WELL, SOMEHOW I GOT THEM LISTED AS FIVE AND SIX NOW.
WELL, WELL NOW, BECAUSE OF THE RE WHEN, ONCE I DELETED WHAT WAS UP THERE, THE NUMBERS AUTOMATICALLY CHANGED.
NOW WE OWN NUMBER SHAPED SWITCHES, NUMBER FIVE, AM I CORRECT OR NOT? YOU'RE NOW ON THE ORIGINAL NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS HONESTLY, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FINE, RIGHT? NO, SIR.
NO, IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S GOING TO BE ACTUALLY NUMBER SEVEN, NUMBER SEVEN.
THAT IT'S GOING TO BE SEVEN THOUGH.
Y'ALL EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT'S GOING TO BE SEVEN BECAUSE I TOOK THE ORIGINAL NUMBER FIVE AND IT GOT BROKEN INTO THREE DIFFERENT STATES.
OH, YOU'RE ADDING, OR YOU'RE ADDING NUMBERS TODAY,
[00:30:01]
AS SOON AS YOU'RE SAYING, AS YOU CHANGE.NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT COMING AT MY HOMEWORK, DOING MY HOMEWORK LIKE THAT, BUT NOW WE HAVE ADJUSTED THE NUMBERS TODAY, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
I'M TRYING TO DO IT IN REAL TIME, AS YOU, AS YOU ARE MAKING YOUR CHANGES IN REAL TIME.
SO ANYWAY, LET'S, LET'S ENTERTAIN THAT CHANGE NUMBER, UH, NUMBER SIX, CHANGE ANYBODY.
AND I REALLY THINK WITH THAT, I THINK IS THAT, UH, YEAH, LET ME SEE IF LIKE IT SHOULD BE SCRAPPED.
IT SAYS, UH, BOARD MEMBERS DEMONSTRATE RESPECT.
UH, I CHANGED THAT TO MODEL THEIR BEHAVIOR COMMONLY ACCEPTED FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS.
ONCE AGAIN, I SAY, SHOULD I SAY SCRATCH IT BECAUSE, UH, BECAUSE IT'S TALKING ABOUT, UH, ABOUT THE, UM, BECAUSE THAT IS BASED ON OPINION THAT I THINK THAT ONCE AGAIN, I PICK MY OPINION, IT CAN BE TAKEN IN A NEGATIVE, IN A NEGATIVE CONFLICT, UH, COMPUTATION IN A WAY THAT OTHERS MAY SEE DIFFERENTLY.
SO, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY CAN READ A BROWN BYLINE AND JUST SAY, OH YEAH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PROBLEM.
AND THAT'S WHAT OUR EVALUATION IS.
I MEAN, WE ALL, WE ALL GROWN REAL THAT WE ARE OFFICIALS.
I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR THAT.
WE COULD, WE COULD GO INTO A LONG TERM DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE, BUT WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE GROUP FISHER FISHER.
I CAN'T SEE THE HANDS, BUT GO AHEAD, TRICIA.
SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CONSULT OUR POLICY MANUAL WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT DELETING ANY SELF-EVALUATION QUESTION.
AND OUR POLICY MANUAL SAYS ON SECTION 2.4, ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE, A NO, I'M SORRY, B A THREE, NOT ENGAGED IN OTHER DISRESPECTFUL OR DISRUPTIVE CONVERSATION.
SO YOU GOT DISRESPECTFUL AND THERE, UM, SURPRISE OR EMBARRASSED BOARD MEMBERS OR STAFF.
UM, I MEAN, THERE'S JUST, THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN OUR POLICIES THAT SAY THAT WE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE RESPECTFUL, UM, MANNERISMS. AND SO I THINK THAT IF IT'S IN OUR POLICY, MAYBE THAT COULD BE A GUIDE FOR HOW WE SELF EVALUATE.
JOANNE BRUCE, YOU'RE RAISING SOME VALID POINTS HERE.
WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR POLICIES.
HOWEVER, OUR POLICY MANUAL HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF FLUX FOR WELL OVER A YEAR NOW.
AND OUR DELIVERABLE OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE, I THINK WE SAID BY JANUARY, DECEMBER TIMEFRAME.
SO I THINK GIVEN THE FACT THAT OUR POLICIES MAY CHANGE, UM, WE'RE, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DILEMMA, BUT, BUT TRISHA'S RIGHT.
PREVIOUS BOARDS HAVE VERY CONSISTENTLY WANTED THAT KIND OF VERBIAGE IN THERE.
AND I WOULD SAY, UH, EVEN THE PARENTS SEATED BOARD, WELL, YOUR NEW BOARD WANT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR, I DON'T KNOW, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN AND I'M OPPOSED TO IT, BUT IT'S CLEAR THE BOARDS WILL HAS BEEN STATED OVER AND OVER THAT OUR BOARD REALLY WANTS THAT IN THERE.
UH, SO MY OPINION AS AN INDIVIDUAL ON THIS, YOU KNOW, HOW SUBJECTIVE IT IS AND, AND, AND HOW IT TREADS INTO AREAS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE GRAY AND HARD TO POLICE, QUITE FRANKLY, AS, AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW.
UM, I MEAN, I THINK I WOULD, I WOULD WANT TO STRIKE IT.
IN FACT, MOM, AND WASN'T THERE EMOTION AT THE LAST MEETING AND IT FAILED TO GET RID OF THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
I DON'T, I, IT WAS TWO, TWO, AND YOU VOTED TO REWORD IT.
I MEAN, IT CAME BACK TO, TO REWORD IT.
[00:35:01]
SO IT'S IN THERE, MEANING WE HAVE TO KEEP TO THE SPIRIT OF IT, BUT PERHAPS WE MIGHT WORD IT.THAT'S WHY I TOOK RESPECT AND PUT A BEHAVIOR COMMONLY ACCEPTED BY ELECTED OFFICIALS.
BUT NO, LIKE, LIKE YOU SAY, JOE, AND THEN CERTAIN DEGREES OF RESPECT THAT MAKES IT A GRAY AREA, BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE, THAT ARE COMMON PLACE THAT I ALL SOCIETY AS RESPECT.
SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY, YOU DON'T TALK ON WHAT ANOTHER PERSON TALKING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S COMMONLY ACCEPTED NO MATTER WHAT, WHAT CULTURE YOU'RE FROM.
SO THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP RELEVANT IF WE'RE GOING TO MEET AS A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO GET SOMETHING DONE.
AND, UH, SO I, I KNOW SAY BEHAVIOR COMMONLY ACCEPTED NOW COMMONLY ACCEPTED.
THIS MEANS ALL OF US AGREE THAT IT'S IN OR OUT OF WATER.
AND WE HAD A LOOK THAT THE SPECIFICS OF INDIVIDUAL CULTURES, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT AND COME FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
SO WE ALL DO HAVE SOME COMMON THINGS THAT WE AGREE UPON.
BUT THE PROBLEM I HAD WHEN YOU SAY ELECTED OFFICIALS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UH, IT'S ONE THING TO CAUSE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT.
IT HAS CERTAIN TIMES EVEN WE ELECTED OFFICIALS AT ALL TIMES, OR WERE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS.
I MEAN, IT'S ONE THING TO GIVE ME A TITLE, BUT ALSO TREAT ME AS THOUGH THE TITLE THAT I'M REPRESENTING.
YOU KNOW,
DON'T TELL ME THE QUESTIONS SHOULD GO TO HIM WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT.
AND THEY, IN THE END, FOR INSTANCE, THEY MAY ANSWER CERTAIN THINGS WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT FOR THEM AND CERTAIN THINGS THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET TO.
SO DAVID COMES OUT IN PUBLIC IS WRONG.
SO ONCE AGAIN, DON'T CALL ME A TRUSTEE.
IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TREAT ME AS A TRUSTEE, BECAUSE THERE'S A TRUSTEE AS A TRUSTEE.
WHEN I WANT, WHILE I'M TELLING YOU SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT, I WAS, IF I, THE TIME OUT TO BRING IT TO YOU, IT MUST BE IMPORTANT TO ME.
SO CAN MORE STANDPOINT WILL CONFUSE MODELS, BEHAVIOR LIKE A TRUSTEE.
THAT'S THIS TOPIC YOU MODELED BEHAVIORS, TRUSTED, NOBODY CALLING YOU AND ANYTHING YOU, ALL THAT, UH, THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD YOU BEHAVE LIKE ONE? THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT'S THE ONLY THING.
NUMBER SIX, I WAS ASKING, DID YOU, WELL, WELL, WE HAVE,
THERE'S A, THERE'S A FINE POINT HERE.
I DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THAT BECAUSE I FEEL BOARD MEMBERS SHOULDN'T BE RESPECTFUL.
I AGREE WITH TRISHA AND I AGREE WITH HUMANA.
I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MODEL PIECE.
CAUSE I LOOK AT POLITICIANS ON A HIGHER STAGE AND I THINK OFTENTIMES WE'RE DOING BETTER THAN THEM.
UH, BUT, BUT I WANT TO REMOVE IT STRICTLY FROM THE VIEWPOINT THAT IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO REGULATE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS BEHAVIORS.
IT CAN BE VERY PROBLEMATIC, VERY DIFFICULT TO DO IT PLAYS OUT IN PUBLIC IN A VERY, UM, UNFLATTERING WAY FOR THE BOARD.
I REALLY FEEL, IT GOES MORE TO WHO IS OFFICIATING OVER THE MEETING.
ARE THEY ABLE TO MANAGE THAT BEHAVIOR, THOSE BEHAVIORS? ARE THEY ABLE TO SHUT IT DOWN? YES.
WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS, BUT AGAIN, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MEETING.
AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN THE CONTEXT OF AMENDING WHOSE JOB IS IT? I, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT WHAT OUR GOAL IS WITH, BY DOING THIS JOANNE AND WE'LL, LET'S, LET'S PUT IT INTO POSITION THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE EVALUATION.
LIKE AS BOARD MEMBERS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE EVALUATION.
WE HAVE AN IMPARTIAL OUTSIDER DURING THE EVALUATION OF THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS. NOW, SHOULD THIS ITEM BE IN THERE OR NOT? IS THE QUESTION OF TERMS OF SOMEONE OUTSIDE LOOKING AT THE BOARD AND SAYING, DUDE, I DIDN'T DO AND GOT EFFICIENT BOARD MEETING OR NOT.
I DON'T ALL OF THE THINGS I DIDN'T LET IT RUN THE WAY IT'S RUNNING THAT WE WILL HAVE NO GOALS, NO, NO PARAMETERS
[00:40:01]
IN TERMS OF HOW WE MEASURE IT.WE CAN'T MEASURE ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE MEASURED, BUT THE FACT IS, DO WE NEED TO MEASURE SOME THINGS TO BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE? AND I DON'T LIKE THAT.
AND YOU PUT IT HERE ON A CHAIR TO MEASURE EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE MEASURED 20 YEARS FROM NOW.
ARE THERE THINGS THAT THE BOARD SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND DO WHEN THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING NOW, TRISHA HAS HER HAND UP.
NO, YOU, YOU BASICALLY WERE SAYING WHAT, UM, WHAT MY THOUGHT WAS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A HIGHER ORDER THAN BEING A TRUSTEE AND THAT HIGHER ORDER IS HUMANITY.
AND SO I, SO GIVEN THAT, I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN PARAMETERS THAT IS EXPECTED IN, IN SOCIAL NORMS. UM, BUT, UH, BUT YOUR POINT ABOUT HOW WILL WE EVER IMPROVE IF WE DON'T LOOK AT OURSELVES AND OUR ENTIRETY AND OUR BEHAVIOR AND OUR WAY THAT WE TREAT EACH OTHER AS PART OF THAT ENTIRETY.
SO THAT'S WHY I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
UM, MALE, I LIKED YOUR WORDING THAT YOU SUGGESTED.
I JUST MIGHT ADD, FOR EXAMPLE, PRACTICE RESPECTFUL, UM, YOU KNOW, T AT THE END OF YOUR STATEMENT, MAYBE GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU MEAN BY A, UH, WOULD YOU REWORD IT? WOULD YOU SAY IT AGAIN, MALE BY A MODEL
UM, AND SO I, I MIGHT JUST SUGGEST THAT WE DO, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, PRACTICING, RESPECTFUL, TONE AND EXPRESSION OR SOMETHING, JUST, JUST TO KIND OF GIVE AN IDEA OF, UM, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO STAY.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO STAY AWAY FROM, BECAUSE RESPECTFUL TONE FOR YOU MAY NOT BE RESPECTFUL TO HIM FOR ME.
I MAY NOT BE DISRESPECTING YOU WITH MY TONE.
WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT DEEM IT DISRESPECTFUL.
SO I WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE CULTURAL THING THAT WE'LL GET INTO THE WAY I WANT IT TO BE, THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING YOUR CONSTITUENCY WITH DUE RESPECT, WHERE THEY WOULD BE PROUD OF HOW YOU'RE REPRESENTING THEM WITHOUT APPEARING TO BE IMMORAL IN TERMS OF DOING IT.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WANT TO, I TO HAVE MY MORAL COMPASS IN TERMS OF WHAT OUR JOB IS, YOU KNOW, NOT BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE DON'T INTEND TO BE DISRESPECTFUL.
SO IF YOU DON'T TEND TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, YOU'RE BASICALLY NOT DISRESPECTFUL.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I APPRECIATE THAT EXPLANATION.
I AGREE WITH YOU WITH THAT MORAL COMPASS, WHICH, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, ALIGNS WITH MY COMMENT ABOUT A HIGHER, A HIGHER, YEAH.
MALE BOARD MEMBERS, MODEL BEHAVIOR, CONVOLUTE, COMMONLY ACCEPTED FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS, RIGHT? THAT'S STILL ACT, I DON'T THINK IT PUTS ANYBODY ON OR OFF THE HOOK.
IT'S JUST, HEY, LET'S CHECK IT.
AND WE AGREED IN THESE THINGS.
CAN WE AGREE ON THAT AS AN INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER ABOVE WHAT YOU GENERALLY THINK? AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY WE, WE NEED TO PROCEED IN AN ORDER THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO HIT US, THAT I'M NOT DOING IT.
AND SOME OF THE THINGS I'M DOING THIS WELL, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN TERMS OF EVALUATING AND BECOMING BETTER.
RIGHT? UM, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THE WAY THAT IS, IS WORDED.
UM, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE TO THAT AND IT IS A SELF SELF-EVALUATION US LOOKING AT US, UM, AS A BODY, AS INDIVIDUALS, BECAUSE THINK ABOUT IT.
UM, WE HAVE A MIXED BAG AS IS, UH, SOME OF US WHEN WE SPEAK OUT ARE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, OUT OF LINE OR OBSTRUCTIONISTS OR, YOU KNOW, CONTRARIANS, BUT HOW DO WE EVALUATE US AS A BODY? IS IT A BOARD, MAJORITY
[00:45:01]
PRESENTS THEMSELVES AS, UH, YOU KNOW, MODELING, COMMONLY ACCEPTED, UH, BEHAVIORS.UM, I SUSPECT IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO VERY PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS IN THE FUTURE.
HE HAS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE BODY GRADES IT.
SO WHEN YOU GET A BODY, A BODY SCORE AND THE BODY SCORE DOESN'T REFLECT ON ANY INDIVIDUAL.
I MEAN, WHY HAVE YOU GOT A TWO AS A BODY DOES NOT REFLECT ON ANY INDIVIDUALS INDIVIDUALLY REFLECT ON THEMSELVES, BUT THAT IS THE BOARD SCORE ON THAT SITE.
AND WE SCORED NINE OR 10, THEN THAT IS THE BOARD SCORE.
AND I WAS DOING, DOING THOSE THINGS CORRECTLY IN OUR MINDS.
IT'S A SELF EVALUATION WHEN WE THINK WE LOOK LIKE THE OTHER PART OF MY QUESTION VERY BRIEFLY IS, UM, IS THERE A WAY TO PUT THIS QUESTION TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WALK, THEY ARE THE ONES PASSING JUDGMENT ON THIS STUFF.
THIS IS A SELF EVALUATION, AND THIS MAY BE OFF TOPIC BECAUSE THIS IS SOLICITING FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC.
UM, BUT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CONSIDER AT A LATER TIME.
WELL, MAYBE WE CAN, WE CAN HAVE THEM EVALUATE US THE TIME AND IF THEY'RE NOT DOING IT EVERY WEEK, NOW THIS BOY, AND THIS IS GOING ON, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN THEY DO THAT EVALUATION, PG, THAT WE ARE GOING TO IMPROVE FROM WHERE WE ARE, BECAUSE WE AUTOMATICALLY NOW ARE SAYING, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK WE LOOK LIKE TO YOU.
WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE? WILLIAM WILLIAM HAS HIS HAND UP.
I, I WAS, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I CAN, I CAN, I CAN, I CAN GO.
THAT, THAT THAT'S, UM, UH, THAT, THAT'S FINE, BUT, BUT, BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO BRING OUT THAT, ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU MADE A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT THAT.
YOU DECIDED THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT IT WAS BEING PUT TOO MUCH ON THE CHAIR, YOU KNOW, AND OTHER COMMITTEES, UH, AS OF OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, I DON'T EVER SEE WHERE A TIME WHERE, AND DAVID'S ON THE LINE.
I LOOKED AND SEE DAVID'S ON THE LINE.
I DON'T EVER SEE WHERE THERE'S A TIME WHERE, WHEN DAVID DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE CONTROL OF THE ME OR WHERE DAVID SAYS, UH, UM, YEAH, WE TRYING TO OVERLAP OVER A MONOPOLIZING MEETING WITH ONE SUBJECT.
UH, I THINK AS A CHAIR, AS A CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE, I THINK THAT I I'VE SEEN HIM, UM, PRETTY MUCH LET YOU KNOW, WHEN, YOU KNOW, IN HIS WAY THAT WE NEED TO MOVE ON OR THAT'S A LITTLE OFF TOPIC.
I THINK I'VE EVEN HEARD HIM SAY THAT
AND I DID AT THE TONE CAUSED ANY DAMAGE.
AND I'VE ALSO, I'VE SEEN WHERE MRS. HALL SHACK HERSELF TOO, AND HER FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS DOING IT, HAVE DONE IT IN A NASTY.
AND I'VE SEEN WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE, UH, EVEN HER, HER AND MR. UH, GUY HAVE, HAVE TOLD US, HAVE TOLD, I SAID AT CERTAIN POINTS THAT, AND THAT MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, IT NEEDS, IT NEEDS TO MOVE ON AND, AND, AND IT WAS DONE IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER.
SO I JUST, I JUST SEE WHERE DIFFERENT CHAIRS, THEY WERE, DIFFERENT CHAIRS HAVE CONTROLLED THEIR COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
SO AS MID-SIZED MRS. REFRIGERANTS AND ACADEMICS, I'VE SEEN WHERE MRS. FUGETT ONE MORE TIME.
I'VE TOLD ME IN ACADEMICS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S KINDA, IT'S A LITTLE, LITTLE, LITTLE DIFFERENT OFF TOPIC AND WE NEED TO MOVE ON MR. SMITH.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN WHERE CHAIRS HAVE DONE THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I SIT IN THE, AND IT COULD BE BASED OFF OPINION, BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS THE CHAIR'S JOB AND I'VE SEEN CHAIRS, SHE HAS DO IT EFFECTIVELY.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT COMMITTEE JAZZ.
WE ENDED UP BEING, TALKING ABOUT BOARD CHAIR, THE BOARD AND THE OVERALL, THE OVERALL BOARD OF PARENTS SAID, IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN ME.
YOU'VE GOT THREE OR FOUR OF US THAT 11 OF US.
AND ALL I'M SAYING IS SOME OF THE MANAGEMENT, ALL OF THAT MEETING LIES ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE MEETING, IN THAT SHOE.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, YOU HAVE ALL, YOU ALSO HAVE THREE OFFICERS.
AND ALONG WITH THAT, A SHARE AS A CHAIR, YOU CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN THE, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU WEAR THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, UH, THE TITLE, CHAIR AND CONVENIENCE, OR JUST LIKE NOW WE HAVE IN THIS CONVERSATION, YOU ARE GOING
[00:50:01]
BACK AND FORTH AND I'M ALLOWING IT.BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE THAT, HEY, I HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH OF THIS CONVERSATION.
I CAN'T GAMBLE YOU CLOSE, AND I CAN'T TRACK YOU DOWN.
I MEAN, YOU ARE, YOU'RE ON THE PERSON.
SOME, SOME TIME WITH THEM, THE MEETING, WE HAVE TO BE OUR OWN PERSON AND RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN BEHAVIOR.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
UM, YOU WERE GOING TO REWORD NUMBER SEVEN, WAS THE CONSENT AGENDA APPROPRIATELY USED, MOVE ON, KEEP THAT YOU WERE GOING TO REWORD IT.
UM, I'M GOING TO TRY TO TRUST MY MEMORY, ALTHOUGH THAT COULD BE A SCARY THING.
UM, I THOUGHT NUMBER SEVEN, WE HAD SOME CONVERSATION THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO LEAVE IT IN THERE, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T USE IT BECAUSE THAT'S THE TYPE OF FEEDBACK WE ARE SEEKING FROM THIS SELF EVALUATION.
SO I THOUGHT THE REWORDING WAS STRICTLY GOING TO BE SOMETHING LIKE TAKING IT FROM A QUESTION AND PUTTING IT MORE IN A STATEMENT SUCH AS THE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, WAS USED APPROPRIATELY OR THE CONSENT AGENDA, UM, WAS USED.
I MEAN, SO I DID NOT REWORD IT THAT'S, UH, BUT, UH, BUT THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION OF ALL WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH NUMBER SEVEN.
I LIKED YOUR FIRST, UM, AERATION THERE THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS USED APPROPRIATELY.
LET'S KEEP APPROPRIATELY IN THERE BECAUSE IN THE PAST THERE'S BEEN A MISUSE OF IT.
I THINK THAT WAS YOUR COMMENT LAST TIME.
THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS USED APPROPRIATELY.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? THAT'S GOOD.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE YOU KEPT INPUT FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT WAS SOLVED AS ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED.
THEN YOU HAVE LIKE A FREE-FALL OR CORRECT OPINION OR WHATEVER.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THOSE THAT WE KEEPING? THOSE ARE JOANNE.
SO WE'RE NO LONGER DOING AGAINST NOW WE'RE USING THE, THE, UM, THE RUBRIC SCALE OR NOT THE RUBRIC SCALE, BUT THE, THE NUMBER SCALE.
UM, SO THE LAST QUESTION, IF WE DO WANT TO PUT JUST A, YOU KNOW, A, A COMMENT AREA, UM, MAYBE WE COULD JUST MAKE IT VERY GENERAL, YOU KNOW, UM, COMMENT, COMMENT ON ANY ITEMS AS NEEDED, OR, YOU KNOW, IT WON'T COUNT TOWARD THE ACTUAL SCORE OF THE, OF THE EVALUATION, BUT IT'S, IT MIGHT, YEAH.
SO I WAS TALKING ABOUT NUMBER, WELL, I WOULD ASK HIM, WE DID, WE DISCUSSED NUMBER EIGHT.
WE GOT TO KEEP IT SOMEWHAT ELABORATE ON THAT ONE.
THIS IS WHAT YOU CHANGED IT TO SUPERINTENDENT WAS SOLID AS ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED.
WELL, I, I SUPPORT THAT PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RAISE OUR QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO OUR EMPLOYEE.
IF OUR EMPLOYEE DECIDES TO FARM IT OUT TO SO-AND-SO ON SENIOR STAFF, THAT WOULD BE HIS, OR HER CHANCE, UH, CHOICE.
BUT, UM, IT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT.
WHY DO Y'ALL LAST? CORRECT? I FOUND THAT TO BE FINE.
AND HOWEVER, WE, YOU KNOW, C SEEK THEM INPUT.
THAT WE MADE TO GO TO PAGE TWO.
PAGE TWO IS ALREADY IN THE FORMAT THAT JOANNE SUGGESTED, RIGHT.
SO THE QUESTION WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO REWORD THOSE ANY, AND HE JUST DECIDED WHICH ONES YOU'RE KEEPING.
IF YOU'RE KEEPING THEM, I'M THINKING Y'ALL TELL ME,
[00:55:03]
DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE WHAT I'M SAYING.THE SCORING ON THE QUESTION QUESTIONS.
I, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE FORMAT IN WHICH WE NEED, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT HERE WE'RE TRANSITIONING FROM A SCORING THE BODY, THE SCHOOL BOARD AS A BODY, TO AN INDIVIDUAL.
UM, UNLESS, UNLESS THE INTENT BEHIND THIS IS TO CHANGE ALL OF THESE TO THE BODY AND NOT INDIVIDUALLY.
I TAKE THE EYE OUT AND MAKE IT A WEEK, OR JUST SAY, WELL, YES.
I MEAN, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT MEL, YOU MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS.
UH, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE FIRST EIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, HOW WE ARE ASSESSING OURSELVES AS A BODY, AS A WHOLE, AND NOW THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT, UH, PAGE TWO AND PAGE THREE, ALL ARE, UH, SELF.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S ASSESSMENT FOR OUR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.
IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT.
THAT'S THE ONE, THAT'S THE ONE I TOLD YOU ALL THE SLAUGHTER I WANTED TO THROW UP BECAUSE Y'ALL SAID, NO, WE'RE GOING TO VET IT ALL YOUR MAMA.
SO, I MEAN, I CAN, I CAN AGREE THAT WE COULD CHANGE IT TO A WEEK, BUT WHEN IT'S, I S VERY, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL JACK, SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE THAT MAKE ANY SENSE WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH.
I, I HAVE SOME, SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, THIS, YOU KNOW, UNLESS, UNLESS MAYBE MR. SMITH, MR. SHACK, DID YOU WORK ON REWORDING ANY OF THIS? WELL, YEAH, I ACTUALLY DID LOOK AT IT.
UM, SO LET ME GIVE IT, IT'S TRICKY HERE.
IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH SCORING SOME OF THESE, RIGHT.
NUMBER TWO, LET'S SAY, WE SAY THE BOARD AVOIDS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN OUR PUBLIC POSITIONS AS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OUR PROFESSIONAL CAREERS AND PRIVATE LIVES.
AND LET'S SAY YOU HAVE ONE ROGUE OR TWO ROGUE MEMBERS WHO, UM, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE JOCKEYING FOR SOMETHING FOR THEIR SPOUSE WHO WORKS IN THE SYSTEM, OR HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SCORE AS IF IT'S ONLY A SMALL POPULATION OF THE BOARD.
AND THAT MY CONCERN ONLY A SMALL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE HER, BUT ONCE EVERY 10, HE IS GOING TO GIVE IT A FIVE.
THAT'S WHY I WOULD LOOK AT THAT.
WE'LL TAKE IT UP THING, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT IN TERMS OF THERE'S SO MUCH INDIVIDUAL STUFF IN THERE IN MY MIND, IT'S HARD TO, SO MY CONCERN ON PAGE ONE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE ADDRESS THE BEHAVIORAL ISSUES, WHICH TEND TO BE A LITTLE MORE, UM, FREQUENTLY OCCURRING, IF YOU WILL, UM, OR THOSE DISCUSSIONS MORE FREQUENTLY, CARRIE, IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO COME UP WITH A SCORE.
UH, LIKE LET'S LOOK AT ANOTHER ONE ON THIS PAGE.
ROBIN, CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT, FRANK DISCUSSIONS, THE BOARD ENGAGES IN OPEN FRANK DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.
I MEAN, I CAN, I CAN, I CAN NAIL THAT ONE DOWN VERY QUICKLY, BUT SOME OF THESE I COULDN'T.
SO, UM, SO DID WE THROW THE ONES UP THAT YOU CAN'T NAIL DOWN, THROW IN UP, KEEP THE ONES THAT YOU CAN? I THINK SO WHAT YOU, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DID THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS THINK? I'M OKAY WITH THAT? I MEAN, I'M, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE.
WE GAIN AND KEEP IT AND KEEP IT MOVING.
I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, MS. FREDERICK.
LET'S GO THROUGH EACH ONE, EITHER TOSS IT OUT OR WE KEEP IT.
WE GO BACK TO THE SAME THING THOUGH.
THE QUESTION IS JOANNE, YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE CHANGE IT TO A RIGHT.
SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH NUMBER ONE? JOANNE STANDS UP THE BOARD FOLLOWS.
I WANT SOMETHING THAT SAYS WE'RE FOLLOWING THE LAW, UM, PARTICULARLY, UM, UH, GUIDELINES, CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED SORT OF SELF DISCIPLINE
[01:00:01]
AND THOSE, YOU KNOW, GOOD CHARACTER AND TOUCHY ITEMS. AGAIN, WE, THE BOARD FOLLOWS WELL, INCLUDING THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.ONLY BECAUSE WE TACKLED CHARACTER'S SELF-DISCIPLINE CHANGING THE WHOLE TOPIC.
SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY DELETING NUMBER ONE AND MAKING SOMETHING YOU GOT IT.
I WOULD AGREE WITH JUST DELETING NUMBER ONE AND PERHAPS, UM, INCORPORATING WHAT MS. HORSHACK SAID AND DO A NUMBER FOUR.
WELL, WELL, I COULD DELETE NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER ONE, MADE FOR JOANNE SUGGESTION OR AT LEAST WORK IT TOGETHER, WORK TALKING ABOUT IT.
THAT HAS TO DO WITH LAWFULNESS.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY.
UM, WE NEED TO FOLLOW ALL LAWS.
ACCORDING OUR OPEN MEETING LAWS FOR YEARS, REALLY, REALLY FOCUSED ON DOING THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS IN PUBLIC.
I SEE TRICIA, EVEN THOUGH IT USES THE WORD LAW IN NUMBER FOUR, THAT'S REALLY TALKING ABOUT NOBODY ACTING INDEPENDENTLY, NOBODY TRYING TO FACILITATE BOARD ACTIONS ON YOUR OWN.
ONE INDIVIDUAL, WHETHER IT'S DISTRICT 11, REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT TWO REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT NINE REPRESENTATIVE CAN NOT ACT UNILATERALLY.
WE ACT AS A BODY AND THAT'S NUMBER FOUR.
AND I THINK THAT A VERY SPECIAL PLACE ON ITS OWN.
UM, BUT IT DOES USE THE WORD LAW.
IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF THE LAW, IF YOU WILL.
I KNOW I WAS JUST TRYING TO BE CONCISE AND NOT MAKE THIS DOCUMENT ENDED UP WITH 85 QUESTIONS.
AND I WAS JUST THINKING THAT WE COULD BE SO CONCISE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A SUGGESTION, THE CORD PHARMAS, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CONSISTENTLY, CONSISTENTLY, AND THEN NOW IT WOULD BE NUMBER ONE.
WE CAN TAKE OUT THAT JUST AS YOU'RE SAYING, TRISHY RAISED A GOOD POINT THERE, TAKE OUT JUST THE GENERAL TERM LAW AND MAKE IT SPECIFIC TO FOYER.
EXCEPT NOW YOU'RE GOING TO STILL NEED ONE FOR THE STATUTES AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE LAW.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO NUMBER FOUR IS NUMBER FOUR GOING TO NOW SAY THAT.
SO NUMBER ONE WENT TO LEADING NUMBER ONE AND REPLACED WITH THE BOARD FOLLOWS TO SOUTH CAROLINA.
I REALLY DON'T EVEN LIKE THAT AT ALL.
ANYBODY ELSE? I BELIEVE EVERYBODY SHOULD SCRATCH IT ABOUT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT ALSO FALLS UNDER LAW THAT YOU, YOU CAN'T, YOU MEAN YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO DECLARE ANY, UM, ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
USING BOARD MEMBERSHIP OR ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.
I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE ON THAT.
SO THIS, THIS, UM, DOCUMENT DIDN'T COME, IT CAME FROM ELSEWHERE AROUND THE STATE AND THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT'S PREVALENT ELSEWHERE, OR MAY NOT BE PREVALENT WITH OUR ACCOUNTED FOR, BUT MAY BE PREVALENT WITH A FUTURE BOARD, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD.
[01:05:01]
TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL MATTER.I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD APPLY TO THE BODY AS A WHOLE.
THAT DOES MAKE SENSE AS A, BUT AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
WELL, IT COULD BE, ARE WE AS A BOARD OR ARE WE ALLOWING CERTAIN MEMBERS TO DO THAT? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, BECAUSE SOME MEMBERS COULD BE DOING THAT AND THE BOARD COULD BE ALONG ALONG, YOU'RE TAPPING AND NOT SAYING NOTHING ABOUT IT.
AND IF YOU ALLOW SOMEONE TO DO THAT ON A BOARD, AND YOU'RE NOT SURE ABOUT IT, YOU MAY BE JUST AS, AS WRONG AS THEY ARE.
BUT I MEAN, I LEAVE IT TO THE BODY TO BODY.
I JUST, I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY AMBIGUOUS.
WHAT DOES PERSONAL GAIN MEAN? I MEAN, MONETARY PERSONAL GAMES, SOCIETAL PERSONAL GAIN.
I MEAN, I JUST THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE EITHER HAVE TO OWN THE QUESTION IF WE'RE, IF WE AGREE TO KEEP IT OR WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, OR, OR TOSS IT.
I THINK ANYTHING THAT MEETS THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE LAW IS COVERED BY THE LAW.
OTHERWISE IT'S JUST JUDGMENTAL ON OUR PART, YOU KNOW, AND WEEKENDS.
THAT DEPENDS ON PERSON USING IT FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR NOT.
UM, MR. CAMPBELL, MAY I, UM, ASK A QUESTION THEN? I HAVEN'T RAISED MY HAND EVERY TIME.
UM, I'M WONDERING IF IT WOULDN'T BE WHO'VE US TO, TO TAKE JOANNE SUGGESTION FOR NUMBER ONE, WHICH, WHICH IS, WHICH IS GREAT.
I THINK THAT'S BEEN A FOCUS OF THE LAST BOARD AND THIS BOARD AND, AND IT'S, AND IT SHOULD BE A FOCUS, UM, FOR FOIL, BUT I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD JUST START OUT THE WHOLE THING BY SAYING THE BOARD CONSISTENTLY FOLLOW SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LAW.
I MEAN, JUST SO WE HAVE THAT UMBRELLA BY WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE FALLS UNDERNEATH IT.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT FROM FOYA JO JOANNE.
BUT JUST PUT, UH, THAT WOULD BE NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER ONE WOULD BE FOLLOW STATE LAWS.
I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TRICIA.
WHY NOT? I MEAN, IT'S REDUNDANT.
WE HAVE TO COVER A LOT OF UMBRELLA ITEMS THAT WILL COME UNDER THAT UMBRELLA.
WE WANT ALL THOSE FOUR, THEY MAY WANT TO REPEAT THAT ONE.
I WOULD JUST SAY EXACTLY BECAUSE THE CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT NUMBER TWO, WE SAID, WELL, THAT'S STATE LAW, SO WHY DON'T WE JUST STRAIGHT OUT AND SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, LET'S SEE HOW WELL THE WE SELF EVALUATE THAT WE FOLLOW, UM, THE LAW.
SO ROBIN YOU'RE CHANGING THAT OR IT FOLLOWS ALL STATE LAWS CONSISTENTLY.
YOU HAVE TO SAY, OH, I'M SURE.
IT'S JUST ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
SO, SO THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, JUST BY MAKING THAT ERROR IN MY MIND, SHOULD WE WORD IT THAT THE BOARD ENSURES THE BOARD FOLLOWS AND ENSURES ALL LAWS ARE ARMY? YEAH.
I SUPPOSE THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR, OUR GOAL AS A FUNCTIONING UNIT, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS FOLLOWING THE LAWS TOO.
SO, AND THAT'S, OH, THAT'S OUR EVALUATION THAT WE MADE SURE THEY FOLLOW THE LAW.
WELL, UM, I WAS, YOU TOOK THE WORD, RIGHT? MY MOM WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S, OUR JOBS HAVE BEEN SHORT, REALISTIC, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IS PROCESS PROBABLY THE DAY OF THE OPERATION.
AND THE QUESTION SHOULD BE, ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT, THAT, THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS STAFF IS FOLLOWING, UH, A LOSS, UM, AND, UM, CONSISTENTLY, AND, AND, AND AS WELL AS IS, ARE WE ASKING THIS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION WHILE WE MAKE YOU STATEMENTS HERE, WE
[01:10:01]
HAD A RATING SCALE.THERE'S GOING TO BE NUMBERS ON THE SIDE.
DO YOU AGREE? DISAGREE, WRONGLY AND WHATEVER.
SO, SO SHOULD THEY BE, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER DOCUMENT FIRST DOCUMENT E THE ONE THAT SHE ROBIN JUST HAD WAS, IT WAS JUST UP.
SO SHOULD IT BE, SHOULD IT BE, DOES THE BOARD TWO DOES GO IN FRONT OF IT? DOES THE BOARD FOLLOWS? YEAH.
UH, IT'S JUST A STATEMENT THAT YOU EITHER AGREE WITH OR DON'T AGREE.
BUT, BUT, BUT THAT WAS MY, UH, MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS NOT REALLY ABOUT US AS WELL.
IT'S RATHER, WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT THE LAWS ARE BEING FOLLOWED BY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES NEED TO BE IN THERE AS WELL.
WELL, WHEN WE SAY ENSURES THAT ME AND ME GUARANTEEING THAT THEY ALL FOLLOW THE LAWS, THE TITLE ONE EXPERTS, THE ATTORNEY, THE SUPERINTENDENT, EVERYBODY WHO IS WHO HE IS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A LITTLE OF VERBIAGE IN THERE.
WELL, HOW WOULD YOU REWARD IT, MR. SMITH? HOW WOULD YOU REWORD IT? ACTUALLY, I NEED TO SEE IT.
I DO NOT BY, UH, CONSISTENTLY BY ALL, BY ALL DISTRICT STAFF, BY ALONE, MAYBE ALONG WITH, MAYBE ALONG WITH ALL DISTRICT PERSONNEL FILES, BECAUSE IT SAYS THE BOARD, IT SAYS, IT SAYS, THIS PRECIPITANT SAYS THE BOARD, THE SUPERINTENDENT IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS.
SO MAYBE THE BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT WILL FOLLOW WHAT WILL FOLLOW BOTH.
SO THE BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT FOLLOWS AND ENSURE ALL LAWS CONSISTENTLY BECAUSE UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENT IS HIM AND HIS STAFF AND HE RUNS EVERYTHING.
SO, SO IT WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THE BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT, BECAUSE THAT THAT'S, THAT, THAT IS IN OUR PRE PRE ROOM.
ALL OF THAT WILL IN MY MIND, A MAN, RIGHT? WELL, SOMEBODY, SOME BOARD MEMBERS THAT THINK DIFFERENTLY AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND THAT'S WHERE, WHAT, WHERE MY ISSUE COMES IN, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME I SEE WHERE, WHERE BOARD MEMBERS DO TOO MUCH OF POLICING OF EACH OTHER AND NOT THE ACTUAL, THE ACTUAL DISTRICT.
UM, I UNDERSTAND, I THINK WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT, MR. SMITH, BUT RE UH, IN MY, THE WAY I SEE THIS IS THAT THIS IS A SELF EVALUATION OF WHAT WE ARE DOING.
WHAT, WHAT I HEAR YOU SAY IS THAT THAT WOULD BE EVALUATING THE SUPERINTENDENT, YOU KNOW, DOES HE, YOU KNOW, AND ALL THE, HIS STAFF THAT REPORTS TO HIM FOLLOW.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK THAT OUR JOB HERE IS OUR WAY THAT WE'RE EVALUATING OURSELVES AND THE BOARD FOLLOWS AND ENSURES THAT ALL LAWS ARE FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY.
SO ROBYN, THAT NEEDS A FEW MORE WORDS IN THERE.
THE BOARD FOLLOWS AND INSURERS, ALL LAWS ARE FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY.
SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY DISTINCTION THERE.
MR. SMITH, IS THAT WHAT I HEAR YOU SAY IS MORE OF A EVALUATING THE SUPERINTENDENT, WHEREAS WE ARE EVALUATING OURSELVES IN THIS.
I THINK THAT WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE ASKING OURSELVES, IT WAS OUR EVALUATIONS.
ARE WE, ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING OUR DUTIES? IT'S MORE OF HOW I SEE IT.
ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT IS WELL AND THE STAFF ARE FOLLOWING, UH, FOLLOWING THE LAWS, EXCUSE ME.
I KNOW IT'S NOT ABOUT EVALUATION.
IT'S ABOUT THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE, WHO ARE WE MAKING
[01:15:01]
SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR FOLLOWING THE LAWS? BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WHERE WE DON'T THAT I NEEDED.THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE SAID WE, WE, WE JUST, WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FIRING ON THEM WHILE WE PULLED US IN EACH OTHER AND NOT ACTUALLY POSTING THE DISTRICT.
AND THAT, AND THEN DO THE JOB IS TO POLICE THE DISTRICT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT BE, WE ARE IN THE COMPOUNDS OF WHAT THE DISTRICT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
I THINK THE EVALUATED, THE EVALUATION PART IS DIFFERENT.
THE EVALUATION PART COMES AFTERWARDS.
I THINK WHAT WILL IS SAYING IS WE TAKE THE EFFORT ON THE FRONT END TO MAKE CERTAIN, UH, OUR EMPLOYEE DOESN'T GO AS DRY.
WE HAD A SCENARIO A WHILE BACK JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE WHERE WE HAD A SUPERINTENDENT WHO WAS ABOUT TO OPEN SCHOOL, CLOSED THE SCHOOL, AND THE BOARD WAS NOT ENSURING THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS, UH, FOLLOWED THE MALL.
UH, ACTUALLY THERE WERE A COUPLE SCENARIOS THERE.
THAT'S WHAT WILLIAM'S TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S THE END OF THE ROAD WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE EVALUATION.
THAT'S ONE ITEM, A SEPARATE ITEM IS THE BOARD ENSURES THE SUPERINTENDENT, UM, FOLLOWS ALL LAWS.
I DID MEASURE THAT THE BOARD IS TAKING, YOU KNOW, TWO DATA AND I'S AND CROSS OUR T'S AT THE SUPERINTENDENT.
YOU COME TO A FUTURE BOARD AND SAY, I'M GOING TO DO THIS.
IT'S THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK ON THAT.
AND WE'VE FALLEN DOWN ON THAT BEFORE.
SO I THINK WE HAD TO LEARN THAT LESSON AND LET'S PUT IT IN THERE.
MAYBE IT'LL PREVENT IT FROM REOCCURRING IN THE FUTURE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE.
BUT IF NUMBER ONE SAID THIS EXACT SAME THING, JOANNE, YOU CAN ERASE THAT PART OF THEM.
NUMBER ONE, THAT SAYS INSURED NUMBER TWO.
BUT I WANT TO SAY IT'S THE SAME THING WHEN IT SAYS, ENSURES MEANS IT'S THE BOARD RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE EVERYBODY ELSE FOLLOW THE RULES, BUT WE'LL HAVE ONE SUPERINTENDENT IN THERE FOR SOME REASON.
THE WORDS I USED WERE THE BOARD FOLLOWS ALL LAWS.
THAT'S NUMBER ONE RIGHT THERE.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE BOARD ENSURES THE SUPERINTENDENT FOLLOWS ALL LAWS.
THAT'S IT'S A LITTLE DAY, RIGHT? THAT'S GOOD.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD ME THE FIRST TIME.
WELL, I HEARD YOU VERY DEVOUT.
I'M SAYING IT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT JUST MADE TO ONE, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
WHERE DO WE SIT? WE GOT TO DO IT NUMBER FOUR TO REWORD IT OR SOMETHING.
I'M THE LAW SCHOOL BULL THAT SAYS A BULL WOULD, AND THAT INDIVIDUAL COME WITH SOMETHING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ACTION OF THE BOARD IS NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL ACTION OR SOMETHING.
SOMEBODY PUT IT IN A GOOD WORD FOR ME.
BUT ALL I'M SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE, I SUPPOSE.
HERE'S A PIECE THAT NEEDS TO GO IN THERE.
THE ONLY WAY I CAN TAKE ACTION, YOU KNOW, IS TO VOTE.
AND VOTES CAN ONLY HAPPEN IN THE CONTEXT OF AN OPEN MEETING CAN HAPPEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
WHAT WE NEED TO SAY HERE IS, UM, UM, OUR BOARD OR BOARD INSISTENTLY, OR YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THE WORD CONSISTENTLY, UM, COMPLIES WITH LAW.
UM, UM, AND UH, I DIDN'T GET THE WORDING, RIGHT? I'M SORRY, NEXT.
UM, ONLY THROUGH THE VOTES, BUT WE'RE VOTING AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.
[01:20:02]
UM, CAUSE AS IT SAYS, NO INDIVIDUAL HAS AUTHORITY TO ACT INDEPENDENTLY.AND SO IF THE BOARD HAS TO ACT AS A BODY, IT CAN ONLY DO AGAIN TO A VOTE AND AT A PUBLIC MEETING.
AND I THINK THAT SAYING MORE THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I'M READING THAT AS THE SAY THAT WHEN THE BOARD DOES ACT, IT IS THE BULLET ACCIDENT, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL ACCIDENT.
AND WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT BOARD ACTION AND NOT, NOT GO INDEPENDENT OF IT.
OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW.
UM, IT'S TALKING ABOUT AUTHORITY HERE.
YOU CAN GO AND SAY, UH, THE MOON'S GOING TO DO THIS AGAIN WITHOUT THE BOARD ACTION.
THE BOARD CAN ONLY ACT THROUGH ACTION.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT ACTS IMPLIES.
I GUESS, AS A BOARD ACTS IMPLIES ACTION BOARD ACTS AS A BOARD BECAUSE YOU GO BACK TO THE TWO, THE, TO THE WORDING OF THAT, SHE SAID, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT WORDING? THE OTHER WORDING, ROBIN, SHOW US WHAT I PUT DOWN THERE.
MAYBE I NEED TO REFINE THAT OR WE NEED TO REFINE THAT.
OH, THAT'S BASICALLY, THAT'S BASICALLY SAYING THE SAME THING, MR. CAMPBELL.
THAT'S ALL ON NUMBER FOUR WHILE MOM WAS ENGAGED IN PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS ON AGENDA TOPICS, THAT'S NOT IRRELEVANT.
WHERE IS IT? THE BOARD COMPLIES WITH ALL AND ASKS WAS WHAT JOANNE SAID HERE IS WHAT, UM, IT'S THERE ORIGINALLY? NUMBER FOUR.
HE SAID WHAT SHE SAID, SAID THE SAME THING BASICALLY.
I MEAN, I'M GONNA SEE WHAT THE, WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCES MR. CAMPBELL? HIS WORDS DAVID HAS HIS HAND UP.
YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE TARGETS OF THIS IS THAT BOARD MEMBERS CAN'T GIVE DIRECTION TO LIKE THE SUPERINTENDENT INDIVIDUALLY AND IT CAN ONLY BE A BOARD THING I'M BORING.
I THINK THAT'S, I AGREE WITH JOANNE.
WE CAN ONLY ACT THROUGH VOTES AT MEETINGS, SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW THE WILL OF THE BOARD UNLESS THERE'S A VOTE.
BUT I THINK THE SECOND PART INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS HAVE NO AUTHORITY IS, IS TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS CAN'T GIVE DIRECTION TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, ANY INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER OFFICER OR NOT, OR CAN'T GIVE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTION.
NOW THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT, BUT KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST THE BOARD ACTION.
IT'S THE, IT'S THE ACTION OUTSIDE OF THE BOARD ACTION THAT THEY'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT.
CAN I ADD TO THAT NOW? DAVID MAKES HIM VERY GOOD POINT.
SO I THINK AS A SEPARATE ITEM, UM, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT SPEAKS TO WHAT DAVID SAID, WHICH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, A BOARD MEMBER CAN'T, YOU KNOW, GO TO COUNTY COUNCIL AND SAY, THE BOARD IS GOING TO DO THIS.
WE ARE GOING TO, UH, YOU KNOW, IS THE BOARD IS GOING TO SEEK A ON-DEMAND, CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT A BOARD VOTE.
SO, UM, I THINK WE DO NEED SOMETHING THAT SPEAKS TO THAT.
LET ME CHECK THE LIST TO SEE IF WE ALREADY HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, I WAS GOING TO SAY, MS. MAYBE MRS. SPLINTERS MIGHT KNOW PATRICIA SCATTER ENDS UP.
UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, ROBIN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER DOCUMENT PLEASE? JUST QUICKLY? WHAT AM I, WHAT AM I CONCERNED WITH? WHAT WE HAVE ON NUMBER FOUR RIGHT NOW IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE WORD.
AND SO YOU'RE ASKING AN EVALUATOR TO EVALUATE TWO SECTIONS WITHIN ONE QUESTION.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE JUST SAY THE BOARD ACTS ONLY THROUGH VOTES AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.
WELL, TRISHA, CAN I REFINE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE? THE BOARD COMPLIANCE WITH LAB THAT SAYS
[01:25:02]
WE CAN ONLY ACT THROUGH A VOTE? YEAH.CAUSE YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO RUN INTO THE PROBLEM WHERE YOU MIGHT SCORE THE QUESTION ON THE FIRST PART OF THE STATEMENT OR YOU HAD TO SCORE IT DIFFERENTLY ON THE LAST PART.
SO YOU BET THAT'S, THAT'S VALID.
UM, ROBIN TAKE, TAKE TRISHA'S SUGGESTION AND IT STILL INCLUDE MOL, BUT SAY THAT THE LAW STATES THAT THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION.
THE LAWS REAL SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY COVERED THE LAW AND NUMBER ONE, DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? SO IF YOU ALREADY AGREE THAT YOU GOT TO GET RID OF THAT PART OF THE GRADE THAT YOU GAVE, NUMBER ONE, I AGREE.
I, I DIDN'T CORRECT IT THERE THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.
WHAT AM I TAKING OUT WITH LAW? OR JUST THE BOARD COMPLIES NOW THE BOARD ACTS X ONLY THROUGH VOTES AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.
NOW WE STILL DIDN'T ADDRESS THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER GOING STRAIGHT.
THAT'S I THINK THAT'S THE TEETH THOUGH.
LIKE DAVID SAID THE TEETH OF NUMBER FOUR.
WOULD YOU WOULD WE WANT TO SAY, AND I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE.
THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS, UM, ANY SINGLE BOARD MEMBERS FROM TAKING ACTION FOR THE BOARD WITHOUT THE BOARD'S ACTION.
WE HAVE TO SAY THAT WE STRICTLY PROHIBIT THAT BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL TO DO IT AND THE CORRECT.
HOW YOU WORD IT SO THAT WE GET A GRADED ONE THROUGH FIVE.
THAT'S WHAT, SO THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS.
DO WE DO IT SOMETIMES? DO WE DO IT INTERMITTENTLY LOUISE PROHIBITED, BUT NOT NEEDS TO BE STATED.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT IT'S LAURIE, YOU KNOW, BOARD MEMBERS GOING OFF AND SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AS SIGNING THAT WHEN THE BOARD HAD VOTED ON IT AS AN AGE OLD STORY.
SO WE'RE AT THE SQUARE RIGHT THERE.
GIVE ME A LITTLE SENTENCE, GIVE US THE SENTENCE I STARTED WHEN THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS, UM, UH, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, UM, FROM ACTING FOR THE BOARD AND I USE THE WORD ACTING IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU CAN EXPRESS THE OPINION OF A BOARD ACTION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN TAKEN.
THAT'S TYPICALLY THE ROLE OF THE CHAIR.
CAN'T TAKE ACTION AS AN INDIVIDUAL, SUCH AS, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMITTING THE BOARD TO SOMETHING, A CONTRACT TO HIRE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
YOU WANT ME TO GO? THINGS LIKE DIRECTING, WHAT ARE BIG THINGS LIKE DIRECTING STAFF MEMBERS OR PEOPLE LIKE I KNOW THE SUPERINTENDENTS WILL TO DO THINGS.
I ASKED THEM, WHERE DO WE GO FROM THERE? MR. CAMPBELL? YES, MA'AM.
UM, IF I WERE TAKING THIS SELF EVALUATION, NOW I WOULD HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING HOW TO SCORE A NUMBER FIVE W FOR ME IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE IF IT SAYS THE AND FORCES, THE STRICT PROHIBITION OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS FROM ACTING FOR THE BOARD.
TRICIA, I MAN, I DON'T GET THE DIFFERENCE PRESSURE.
WELL, WHEN WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, LET'S SCORE A ONE TO FIVE, THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS INDIVIDUALS FROM ACTING FOR THE BOARD.
SO AM I, AM I SCORING THAT THE BOARD IS PROHIBITING THAT? OR AM I SCORING THAT THE BOARD ENFORCES THE STRICT, WE ALREADY KNOW IT'S LAW.
SO THE BOARD ENFORCES THE STRICT PROHIBITION OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS ACTING OR THE BOARD, MAYBE IT'S A NUANCE AND MAYBE IT'S JUST THE WAY MY BRAIN WORKS, BUT I UNDERSTAND HOW YOUR BRAIN, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SLEEP.
BUT NOW IS MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
[01:30:01]
UH, WHEN YOU SAY IN FORCES, IS THERE BY LAW, ANY ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT? GOOD.WELL, HOW DO, HOW DO WE, I MEAN, SO PLAY IT OUT FOR ME, HOW WE WOULD, HOW WE WOULD SCORE THAT AS, AS SUGGESTED AS WRITTEN.
I MEAN, I JUST SCORE IT ACCORDING TO OUR EXPECTATIONS ON IT.
NOT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT HAPPENS, WE ARE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT GET UPSET ABOUT IT, BUT I AGREE THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE.
BUT WHEN YOU SAYING FORCES, YOU ARE FORCING US TO DO SOMETHING.
WELL THEN WHAT IF WE WERE TO PUT THIS IN A MORE, UM, POSITIVE, LIKE ALL OF LIKE ALL OF OUR OTHER STATEMENTS, ALL OF OUR OTHER STATEMENT.
SO WHAT IF WE DID SOMETHING LIKE BOARD MEMBERS REFRAIN FROM, UM, OR BOARD MEMBERS? WHERE'S MY BRAIN RIGHT NOW.
LIKE, LIKE, UH, REFRAMED A NEGATIVE WORD TOO, BUT BOARD MEMBERS AS A WHOLE AND NOT INDIVIDUALS, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? BECAUSE THAT IS THAT, THAT IS THE, UM, THE WAY ALL OUR OTHER STATEMENTS ARE WRITTEN.
AND UM, FOR ME, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE.
I ACTUALLY, AS A WHOLE, UH, MRS. UH, AWESOME.
MRS. ARSHAD GOT YOUR HANDS UP, BUT JOANNE.
SO I MAYBE, AND MAYBE IT'S JUST THE WAY IT'S WORDED IT.
IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT REPETITIOUS OF THE PRIOR ONE, NUMBER FOUR.
UM, WE WANTED, AT LEAST I WANT TO ANSWER IT SOMETHING THAT PROHIBITS OR RESTRICTS.
IT IS A LITTLE NEGATIVE BECAUSE IT'S AN ILLEGAL ACT.
THE INDIVIDUAL COULD POTENTIALLY BE.
WE GOTTA PUT DAN ON THAT FOUR, FOUR AS THE BOARD'S ACTION.
MAY I FINISH MR. KENDALL? AND IT MIGHT PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION.
UM, WE'VE HAD SCENARIOS WHERE WE HAVE DIRECTED, UM, DISTRICT STAFF, FOR EXAMPLE, TO AFTER THEY DO A CONTRACT NEGOTIATION TO BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
UH, A COUPLE OF MEETING OR SOUP BACK NOW, AND I'M MOTION ON BOARD ACTION SAID, BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
SO THAT WAS THE BOARD TAKING CONTROL OF THAT ISSUE AND SAYING, YOU CAN'T GO OFF AND DO THAT ON YOUR OWN.
WE ARE PROHIBITING THAT FROM HAPPENING.
THIS IS A PRETTY STRONG STATEMENT ON THIS ONE.
IT IS IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IT NEGATIVE.
BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE A STAND AS BOARD THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROHIBIT IN THIS CASE, WE'RE POLICING OURSELVES AS A BODY, NOT DISTRICT STAFF, BUT WE HAVE TO PROHIBIT ANY MEMBER OF OUR BOARD.
TYPICALLY THAT WOULD FALL IN THE REALM OF THE OFFICERS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES CHARGED FOR SIGNING DOCUMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND EXECUTING LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE BOARD.
SO WE HAVE TO MAKE A STRONG STATEMENT HERE THAT NOBODY OFFICERS, OR EVEN IN THE RARE EVENT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, RANK AND FILE A BOARD MEMBER AND SIGN A DOCUMENT ON THE BOARDS.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO PROHIBIT THAT.
AND DO WE ALWAYS PROHIBIT IT FIVE? DO WE, MOST OF THE TIME PROHIBITED FOR, DO WE ABOUT HALF THE TIME PROHIBITED? UH, TWO IS, YOU KNOW, ONCE IN A WHILE, ONE IS RARELY DO WE RARELY PROHIBITED, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A QUESTION, THAT'S A VALID QUESTION.
THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE IN WHERE JOE AT IS SAYING AND WHAT THEY WOULD SAY.
IF, IF WE READ IT IN A PROACTIVE AND A NON NEGATIVE SENSE, IT'S NEGATIVE CONTENT, MAN, WHEN YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, LET ME FINISH
[01:35:01]
WHERE YOU SAY THAT SOMEONE IS PROHIBITED FROM DOING SOMETHING, THEN YOU CAN ALSO SAY THAT THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO DO EVERYTHING EXCEPT SO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? YUP.I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE THIS STATEMENT AND MAKE IT THE SAME THING.
YOU WANT TO MAKE IT WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO POLICE THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ALL WE GOING BE AT, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GRADE IT FIVE, FIVE TO ONE EFFECTIVELY.
BUT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, I'LL GO WITH THE VOTES.
I DON'T CARE IF WE THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT BIZARRE SHACK.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE 10 YEARS FROM NOW, YOU HAVE A CHAIR IN PLACE WHO KNOWS.
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE ACTION A, BUT DOES IT ANYWAY, IT'S LATER DISCOVERED BY THE BOARD SHOWS SOME MILD LEVEL OF DISCONTENT.
IT REOCCURS A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE YOU CLOSE AGAIN, BUT PERHAPS IN A MORE SERIOUS ISSUE AS OF THE EXECUTION OF A, OF A LEGAL DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE BOARD'S CONSENT, THIS IS A REAL SCENARIO THAT CAN PLAY ITSELF OUT.
AND THE BOARD NEEDS TO GET CONTROL ON THAT.
I HAVE WORKED WITH CHAIRS WHO TIME ARE VERY GOOD.
WHY I WORKED WITH ONE CHAIR WHO WAS AN EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR.
THE BOARD MAY NOT ALWAYS BE IN THE KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S BEING DONE AT THE OFFICER LEVEL.
I KNOW IT MAKES PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IT IS CRITICAL THAT FUTURE BOARDS, I HAVE FULL DISCLOSURE.
AND THIS IS WHAT THIS SPEAKS TO.
WE'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN SORT OF TIMMY TELLING AROUND THIS, BUT TYPICALLY IT'S THE OFFICERS WHO CAN ACT, WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACT WITHOUT THE BOARD.
AND SOMETIMES EVENING'S TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, AND IT'S NOT DONE CORRECTLY.
SO WE WANT TO PREVENT THAT IN THE FUTURE.
NOW'S YOUR CHANCE TO TAKE A STAND.
SO IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS, I'LL SIT BACK.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT, THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
I JUST, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT 10 YEARS FROM NOW, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, OH, WE WANT THIS EVALUATION FOR THAT ACT TO BE WRITTEN.
AND WE'RE EVALUATING WHETHER AS A BOARD, WE ARE DOING THOSE THINGS, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THIS FROM HAPPENING, NOT HOW ARE WE GOING TO PUNISH IT AND NOT REALLY REACTING TO IT.
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO WE, OUR, OUR CHARACTER ON THE BOARD ADDRESSING THAT IN TERMS OF ITS WAS IMPROPER.
LIKE YOU'RE DOING NOW, WE CAN'T, WE'RE NOT STOPPING IT.
SO WHEN YOU SAY FOR HIM, IT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED TO BE STOPPING THOSE THINGS AND HOW CAN HE GRANDDAD.
NOW THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.
IF YOU FELT THAT, THEN I WOULD AGREE AND BE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT DOING IT.
IT WOULD BE A ONE VERSUS A FIVE.
IT WOULD BE WHERE WE ARE INEFFECTIVE AND THEN DEAL AND DEALING WITH THAT.
A AND T TO GIVE IT MORE TEETH.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN THINGS ARE CONVENIENT FOR US TO BE TO, TO A TIME FOR US TO NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
ALL NOW I'M ASKING YOU, LET ME FINISH.
WE CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT FOR US TO HOW, HOW IT HAS TO BE SAID AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT STILL HAS TO BE SAID, AND IT IS A CONTINUING PROBLEM, APPARENTLY THAT SOME OF US SEE.
SO THEREFORE IT'S, AS WE, AS REVEREND RAISE, WHEREVER IT IS, WHEREVER YOU, UH, HOW YOU TAKE AS A, AS A, AS A NEGATIVE, I DON'T THINK IT'S NEGATIVE.
IT'S STRAIGHT TO THE POINT THAT IT MUST BE PROHIBITED.
SO IT'S NO, IT'S NOT WAY OF GOING AROUND ME.
IT'S JUST A QUESTION HE'D BE DIG IS FIVE THAT WE TAKE, WE DO A GOOD JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THE SITUATION OR ONE WE DON'T, WE DON'T DO.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T DO A GOOD JOB WITH TAKING CARE OF IT.
OR THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT.
I THINK WE'RE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A YELP.
[01:40:01]
NO, THEY'RE NOT.I MEAN, TO ME, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? ACTION.
THAT'S BOARD MEMBERS, ANY BOARD MEMBERS, RIGHT? UM, SO A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS, JOANNE, UM, TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THIS IS A FABULOUS ARGUMENT TO MAKE FOR POLICY.
IF IT'S NOT ALREADY INCLUDED IN POLICY WHERE I WAS HEARING YOU SAY SOUNDED MORE LIKE POLICY THAN A SELF EVALUATION, UM, QUESTION.
THAT WAS, I MEAN, JUST A MINUTE, SECONDLY, AS FAR AS IT SOUNDING NEGATIVE, I'M NOT TRYING TO SOUND LIKE POLLYANNA HERE.
I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS AS AN ASSESSMENT TOOL.
I'VE CREATED MANY ASSESSMENT TOOLS IS VERY HARD TO, TO THE, THE MIND THINKS MORE OF THE POSITIVE.
LIKE HOW DO I ANSWER A QUESTION WHEN IT'S RELATED TO ME IN A POSITIVE TOWN? AND I DON'T MEAN GOOD, BAD, FUZZY.
I MEAN, THE USE OF THE WORDS, NOT USING NEGATIVE WORDS, SUCH AS NO, NEVER NOT AND SO ON.
SO THAT'S ALL, I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS AN ASSESSMENT TOOL, TO YOUR POINT THAT IF, IF THIS QUESTION SAID, BOARD MEMBERS ACT AS A WHOLE AND NOT AS INDIVIDUALS, PERIOD, I THOUGHT THAT GOT EXACTLY TO YOUR POINT THAT NO ONE'S GOING ROGUE THAT NO ONE IS TAKING OFF.
SO THOSE WERE MY, MY THREE POINTS.
WELL, SHIT, IT IS A GOOD POINT.
UM, SO, BUT, BUT OFTENTIMES WHEN WE PRESENT THAT TO PEOPLE, FOLKS, BOARD REPRESENTATIVES, I THINK SOMETIMES THE INTERPRETATION IS THEY CAN'T GO OFF AND EXPRESS THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS.
UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL ACTION MAKING LEGAL DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, SIGNING A CONTRACT, UH, EMPLOYING AN ATTORNEY AND ENGAGING IN A TURN WITHOUT THE BOARD.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE TYPES OF ACTIONS, NOT, UM, HOW IT'S OFTENTIMES INTERPRETED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY SO AND SO CONTINUES TO EXPLAIN WHY HE OR SHE VOTED THAT WAY.
UM, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT VERY SPECIFIC.
AND THE WORD ACT, I SUPPOSE, IF YOU WERE TOO TIED TO THE PREVIOUS ONE, IMPLIES A BOAT, UM, BUT INDIVIDUALS CAN NOT FACILITATE THE WORK OF THE BOARD THEMSELVES.
IT MUST COME THROUGH BOARD VOTE FIRST AND THAT'S MUCH MORE SERIOUS.
THE BOARD FUTURE BOARDS CAN GET THEMSELVES.
IT'S MORE LEGAL, HOT WATER DOING THAT SCENARIO, HAVING AN INDIVIDUAL SIGNED SOMETHING WITHOUT THE BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE, THEN, UM, COMPARED TO DAVID'S, WHICH IS ALSO IMPORTANT.
YOU CAN'T EVEN SOLICIT FEEDBACK FROM A FACULTY MEMBER, YOU KNOW, UM, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, IT'S GOT TO COME THROUGH THE BOARD OR THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT.
SO, UM, SO WHAT Y'ALL SAYING IS THAT NO NEED TO BE BOARD MEMBERS.
THEY NEED TO BE BOARD OFFICERS BECAUSE WHEN YOU MEET YOUR BOARD MEMBERS, ACCORDING TO THIS CAN DO THINGS TOO, BESIDES SIGNING DOCUMENTS.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, MEL.
ACTUALLY, YOU JUST CUT ME, MAN.
THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GESTALT OF THE QUESTION WAS.
IT'S TALKING ABOUT ALL OF OUR INDIVIDUAL ACTION AS WE GO OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY, ACTING AS THE BOARD, WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT, THAT'S THE BOARD AS WELL.
DAVID ACTUALLY, DAVID, THAT'S FINE.
UM, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE NOT BEING NEGATIVE POINT, BUT I THINK THE POINT OF THIS IS THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT ALLOW INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS TO ACT FOR THE BOARD BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE POLICIES, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT ENFORCED, THEN THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A NEGATIVE FOR THE BOARD.
THE BOARD NEEDS TO ENFORCE ITS POLICIES.
THE BOARD NEEDS TO ENFORCE IT.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT TRISH WAS GETTING AT BEFORE THE BOARD.
CAN'T SOMETIMES LET INDIVIDUALS DO THINGS AND OTHER TIMES NOT LETTING INDIVIDUALS DO THINGS.
SO I THINK THIS IS TRYING TO GET TO THE CONSISTENCY OF NOT ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS TO ASSUME AUTHORITY OR THE BOARD.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT POSITIVELY.
UH, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS TARGETING.
SO THE BOARD DOESN'T ALLOW ONE MEMBER TO HAVE, UH, UH, TO GIVE INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OR
[01:45:01]
ONE MEMBER, UH, YOU KNOW, SIGNED CONTRACTS AS, AS JOANNE HAS BEEN POINTING OUT.DON'T ALLOW ANY MEMBERS TO DO THAT.
AND THEY ENFORCE IT CONSISTENTLY AND THEY DON'T SAY, OKAY, WELL YOU CAN DO IT, BUT YOU CAN'T.
AND I, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD SAY THAT POSITIVELY, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO TARGET.
WELL, DAVID TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT IN MY MOUTH.
UH, HOW LONG WOULD YOU KNOW, UH, MR. ROGERS BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT WHEN SHE TALKED, WHEN SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, POLICIES, YOU GOT SOME POINT IN TIME.
I THINK THIS IS WHERE OUR POLICIES ACTUALLY GET, UH, T4, OUR POLICIES ACTUALLY GET EVALUATED BECAUSE, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE, WHEN WE HAVE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS, THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE NOT, THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE IN OUR POLICIES.
SO THEREFORE WE ARE EVALUATING POLICIES IN HOW EFFECTIVE WE ARE.
WE ARE COMPLIANT TO POLICY HERE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT MAKES IT, UH, VALID TO PUT THAT IS THE WAY MISSES, UH, OR, OR, OR SHACKS.
I HAD IT BASICALLY LIKE THE MS. SCRIBNER.
HE BASICALLY SAID THE SAME THING.
THEN THERE'S NO NICE WAY TO PUT IT.
I MEAN, THE QUESTION HAS TO BE ASKED IN THE FORMAT THAT HE WAS ASKED.
SO THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT'S MY LOGICAL THINKING.
SO DIFFER WITH YOU AND DAVID, BUT I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE.
YOU PUT IT POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE SINCE YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU GOT TO GRID IT.
WASN'T DOUG AS A SPANKING, MR. KEVIN, WASN'T NOT DONE THAT, MAN.
YOU CAN AGREE TO USE A WEIGHT, BUT ANYHOW, COME UP WITH, COME UP WITH A SENTENCE, THEN COME UP WITH A SENTENCE.
UM, LET ME, LET ME GIVE THIS SOME THOUGHT HERE ACTUALLY WAS GOING TO COMMENT ABOUT ANOTHER SCENARIO THAT I CAN CITE TO.
THIS IS PREVALENT ENOUGH WHERE IT'S BEEN PROBLEMATIC FOR YEARS, AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY PUT ANYTHING DOWN HERE.
UM, WE HAD A SCENARIO SEVERAL YEARS BACK.
WE HAD A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL GIVE A BLESSING ON A HIGHER, THE HIGHER TOOK PLACE BEFORE IT WAS EVER ENACTED OR FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN, UH, IN, UH, IN A, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYEE RATIFICATION REPORT, OR EVEN BY A BOARD VOTE, IT HAPPENS IT'S WAY MORE PREVALENT THAN IT SHOULD BE.
SO LET'S TAKE A HACK AT THIS HERE, UM, INDIVIDUAL, ALL RIGHT, THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS I'M BACK TO THAT.
I WANT IT TO START WITH THAT
UM, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO INCLUDE SOME SORT OF FOLLOW UP, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT DETAILED IN POLICY.
AND THAT GOES BACK TO SOMETHING.
TRISHA SAID THE FOLLOWUP TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, HOW WE WOULD MANAGE THAT ACTION MIGHT BE A FUTURE POLICY, BUT FOR NOW IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS, UM, UH, IT HAS TO BE OFFICERS BECAUSE ONLY THE OFFICERS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN FOR THE BOARD.
UM, I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE IT OFFICERS, THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS ANY, UH, ONE OR MORE OFFICERS, UM, FOR, IN ACTING UNILATERALLY WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL, I GUESS THAT'S UNILATERALLY, UM, MAYBE REDUNDANT.
UM, AND I'M JUST GETTING A DRAFT HERE.
UM, I GUESS IN THE EXECUTION OF, OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS WOULD PROBABLY COVER IT ALL FOR THE MOST PART.
UM, NOW THIS ONE'S REALLY SPECIFIC BECAUSE YOU COULD BE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYEE HIRINGS OR FIRINGS, THE PE YOU COULD BE TALKING ABOUT, UH, UM, ENGAGING AN ATTORNEY WITHOUT BOARDS NOTIFICATION.
YOU COULD BE TALKING ABOUT, ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE A POLICY FOR EMERGENCY SCENARIOS THERE, UH, YOU COULD BE TALKING ABOUT
[01:50:01]
SIGNING A CONTRACT THAT THE BOARD HAD VOTED ON YET.UM, SO I WOULD SAY ROBYN, LET ME FINISH THAT FOR YOU.
THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS ANY ONE OR MORE OFFICERS IN ACTING UNILATERALLY WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL AND THE EXECUTION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS.
CAN YOU SAY THE KEY PHRASE IN THAT? AND YOU'RE GETTING RID OF THE REST OF IT.
CAN YOU PHRASE IN THAT IS WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL, BECAUSE IF AN INDIVIDUAL WERE TO DO THAT WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL, AND WITHOUT THAT AUTHORIZATION, I LIKED DAVID'S USE OF AUTHORIZATION THAT WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH THE LAW.
SO I GUESS WE CAN GET RID OF THE WORD LAW THERE, NO MATTER REALLY, WITHOUT BOARD, YOU COULD SAY APPROVAL SLASH AUTHORIZATION.
I LIKE THE WORD AUTHORIZATION THERE.
A PREAMBLE DENOTES A VOTE, WHICH IS FORMAL.
CHANGE THAT YOU CHANGE THE INTENT OF THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE, UH, STATEMENT.
WELL, I KNOW YOU, BUT YOU COULD HAVE SAID THAT IN ANY OF THE OTHER NUMBERS, BUT THAT NUMBER THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS, NOT JUST THE, NOT JUST THE OFFICERS.
WHAT ABOUT ME? CAN I DO WHAT I FEEL LIKE AS AN INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER NOW, SINCE YOU ONLY ADDRESS THE OFFICERS THERE? YEAH.
ANOTHER ONE THAT COULD BE ANOTHER ONE.
NOW, WHEN YOU'RE, MAYBE YOU WANT IT WHERE THIS ONE WAS ATTENDED TO BE, BUT YEAH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER ONE.
NOW WE CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER ONE.
I THINK THE MORE SPECIFIC WE CAN GET WITH EACH OF THEM, THE BETTER THE BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO ZERO IN ON THEIR RESPONSE.
YEAH, I WAS, I WAS GLAD THAT SHE GOT HER HANDS
SO LET, LET ME JUST ASK ABOUT THIS.
AM I SCORING THE BOARD? HOW THE BOARD PROHIBITS THE OFFICER'S OR AM I SCORING WHETHER THEY OFFER STAIRS OR INTO THIS? THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAD WITH THE WORDING.
AND THIS GOES BACK TO 20 MINUTES AGO, WHEN YOU SAY THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBIT.
SO THIS QUESTION IS ASKING ME TO SCHOOL OR HOW WELL THE BOARD IT IS THAT YOUR INTENT, JOANNE, MY INTENT.
AND THAT'S WHY I BEGAN THE SENTENCE WITH THE BOARD STRICTLY PROHIBITS THE ENTIRE REST OF THE SENTENCE DESCRIBES WHAT WE'RE PROHIBITING IN.
YOU AS A BOARD MEMBER ARE SITTING BACK AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ACTIONS YOUR OFFICERS HAVE TAKEN THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
AND YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF, HONESTLY, DID OUR BOARD PROHIBIT THIS OR DID WE ALLOW IT TO TAKE PLACE? HOW DO WE FOLLOW UP WITH IT NOW, ADMITTEDLY, WE DON'T HAVE A PAUSE AND THINK THAT SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH THOSE TYPES OF ACTIONS.
BUT GIVEN THAT HISTORY IN A NUMBER OF LOCAL ELECTED BODIES HAS FOUND THEMSELVES STRUGGLING WITH THIS.
I'M NOT JUST SAYING US, I'M TALKING, IT'S VERY PREVALENT.
THIS WAY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOURSELF AND SAY, WHAT DID YOU DO TO STOP THAT? I MEAN, DID YOU DO ANYTHING, DID YOU, DID YOU TRY TO PROHIBIT IT? WELL, HOW DO YOU RATE YOURSELF ON A SCALE? THAT'S IT? OKAY.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT WAS YOUR INTENT WAS HOW THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS ARE GOING TO EVALUATE HOW THE BOARD PROHIBITED IT.
NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICERS DID IT.
THIS IS GOING TO GO IN FRONT OF THE FULL BOARD FOR, UM, TO DETERMINE, AND, AND I THINK EACH ONE OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE VETTED AT THAT TIME.
SO YES, I'M FINE WITH MOVING ON TO MEL'S POINT THAT WE HAVE STRAYED FROM THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF NUMBER FOUR ON PAGE TWO.
AND THEREFORE WE MUST NOW INCLUDE SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
I THINK, I THINK WHAT SHE WAS, SHE HAD THE FIRST TIME WE WOULD TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOU HAD FOR THE, ABOUT THE, UH, ABOUT INDIVIDUALS? DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOU HAD THE LAST TIME? AND HE SAID THAT THE WORDING WAS TOO ROUGH.
I THINK TRICIA DIDN'T YOU PENNED THAT ONE CHURCH? THE ONE THAT I JUST REPLACED.
I, I, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS OUR SHACK IS, OR WHAT WAS YOUR WORDING ON THE ORIGINAL? THE, THE, THE NUMBER FIVE THAT WE HAD, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING ALONG THE BOARD ACTS AS A, UH, AS A WHOLE ROB.
[01:55:01]
THE BOARD ACTS AS A WHOLE AND NOT AS INDIVIDUALS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE REFERRING TO MR. SMITH? YES.
MA'AM IT WAS SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
YOUR SHORT-TERM MEMORY IS MUCH BETTER THAN MINE.
THAT WASN'T, THAT WASN'T THE ONE WE STARTED VETTING BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GO WITH THAT ONE BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS NOT A RESTRICTIVE, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS POSITIVE.
IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS, I THINK IT WAS MORE ALONG THOSE THAT THE BOARD WAS, UH, PRIEST.
THE BOARD WAS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
ANY OF ANYONE BOARD MEMBER OR INDIVIDUAL ACT, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES.
YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT MAZHAR SHACK, BUT WHAT YOU SAID THE FIRST TIME.
BUT WILL I REFINED IT? I USED THE WORD STRICTLY PROHIBITED, BUT I MADE IT A BIT MORE POINTED, UM, AND NARROW IN FOCUS TO FOCUS ON OFFICERS ACTING UNILATERALLY ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD.
WHAT I'M ASKING, WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, HOLD ON.
WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS TO COME UP WITH, I'M ASKING YOU, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL WORRY YOU HAVE FOR INDIVIDUALS? BECAUSE NOW WE LEFT THE OFFICER'S ALONE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WAR, THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS, AS I'M ASKING YOU, DO YOU REMEMBER YOUR WORDING THAT YOU HAD FOR INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS? THAT'S NOT ANYONE THAT OBVIOUSLY THAT BOARD MEMBERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACT INDIVIDUALLY ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
YOU SAID BOARD MEMBERS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED TO ACT AS INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS.
AND I THINK IT WAS SIMPLE AS JUST SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
AND WELL, BUT THE INTENTION WAS NOT CLEAR.
I GO AHEAD AND MAKE LIKE, I GOT IT.
UM, I WOULD SAY, I WOULD SUGGEST FOR THIS ONE THAT WE USE DAVID'S SUGGESTION OF, UM, APPROACHING STAFF OR INFORMATION.
NOW THAT'S A POLICY, RIGHT? TRISH.
WE CAN'T GOT TO GO THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT AND DAVID, WHEN HE WAS JUST MAKING HIS COMMENTS.
WE CAN GET NARROW AGAIN AND FOCUS IF WE WANT TO MY OPINION ON, ON BOTH OF THESE IS THAT WE'VE GOT POLICIES.
THE QUESTION IS REALLY FOLLOWING THE POLICIES ARE NOT.
AND I WAS GOING TO SAY, I THINK THAT THE BOARD SHOULD BE THE BOARD, THE BOARD 50 PROHIBITS ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER ACTING AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
WE'RE NOT EVALUATING THE POLICIES.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHERE WE MISS.
UH, I WOULD INTERPRET DIGITAL WHAT WE ARE DOING.
UH, VERY CONFUSED IN TERMS OF MY MIND, WE'RE NOT EVALUATING THE POLICIES WE'RE EVALUATING.
AND THE ACTION IS THAT THE BOARD MEMBER IS ACTING AS A, AS THE BOARD, AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
WAS THAT THE ACTUAL, THE BOARD AS A COLLECTIVELY, IF YOU, IF YOU READ NUMBER FOUR, BASICALLY NUMBER FOUR WAS SAYING STATING ABOUT YOU, ANY BOARD MEMBER AND PARTICULARLY ACTING AS THE BOARD AND NOT AS A BOY, AS A WHOLE, AS AN 11 PEOPLE VERSUS ONE PEOPLE.
AND THAT, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID.
THE BOARD, THE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD NOT ACT AS ONE MEMBER, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AS THE BOARD.
MY POINT WAS THAT IN LOOKING AT WHAT, HOW WE WRITE THESE, WE RATE THIS AS TO SALES CHECK OURSELVES AS A BOARD.
UH, ALL WE FULFILLING THE POLICIES OR NOT NUMBER SIX, I'M NOT DRIVING.
I'M GONNA SAY THE TIME FIVE AND SIX.
SO I'VE TALKED ABOUT FIVE RIGHT NOW, BUT ALL WE WAITING THE POLICY AGAIN, BECAUSE THE POLICY AGAIN, BECAUSE GOT THE POLICIES MR. CAMPBELL, THE POLICY HAS TO BE EVALUATED AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WHERE DO WE,
[02:00:01]
POLICIES.YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M FOLLOWING, UM, THE NUANCES OF SOME OF THIS CONVERSATION, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE ARE NOT HYPOCRITICAL, THAT SOMETIMES WE ARE LOOKING AT THE POLICIES TO GUIDE US AND HIS SELF EVALUATION.
AND OTHER TIMES WE ARE NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE POLICIES THAT TALK ABOUT RESPECTFUL BODY, LANGUAGE, TONE, AND EXPRESSION.
HOWEVER, WE DECIDED AT THIS COMMITTEE, WE WERE NOT GOING TO PUT THOSE WORDS INTO THIS EVALUATION.
SO I JUST CAUTION US FROM BEING HYPOCRITICAL AS TO SOMETIMES WE ARE USING THE POLICIES TO GUIDE OUR QUESTIONS.
AND OTHER TIMES WE ARE NOT, WELL, THIS EFFICIENCY, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, WELL, JOANNE, TRICIA, I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THE PAGE AND SEE WHAT WORDING WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T.
AND I'M CERTAIN AS WE GO THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT, WE WILL HAVE SKIPPED TOO MANY POLICIES.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M PERSONALLY TRYING TO DO HERE.
I'M JUST STICKING WITH, YOU KNOW, HERE.
UM, AND I DO AGREE WITH YOU IF THE POLICY SAYS SOMETHING AND THERE'S SOMETHING IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT MIRRORS IT AND IT'S CLEARLY THE WILL OF THE BOY, THEN I DO THINK WE NEED TO INCLUDE IT IN THIS INSTRUMENT.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS SAYING, BUT GO AHEAD, JOANNE.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HER THAT WAY, BUT GO AHEAD.
WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I THOUGHT, MAN, YOU, AND WE'RE, WE'RE ACTUALLY AT ONE POINT SAYING THE SAME THING, BUT JUST SAYING IT DIFFERENTLY.
UM, AND COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU THINK TRISHA'S INTERPRETATION IS OF THE US DISREGARDING SOME POLICY, UM, UM, INCLUSION HERE, UH, JUST, IT WAS A CAUTION, IT WASN'T AN ASSERTION.
AND I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT I REMEMBER YOU BRINGING UP THE POINT OF US REFERRING BACK TO POLICY AND, AND, AND, AND W, AND I BELIEVE NOW NUMBER SIX WOULD FALL AND NUMBER SIX AND FIVE WOULD FALL UNDER THAT.
UH, UH, SO, UM, I, I, I DON'T, I DID NOT, I DID NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND LIKE I SAID, AS I, AS I SAID TO YOU, I REMEMBER YOU BOUGHT, YOU BOUGHT UP THE POLICY PART THAT WE SHOULD BE USING.
USERS ARE USING IT BASED OFF POLICY, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER US COMING TO YOU.
HE NOW MISSED, UH, GREEN ON OUR REAL AGREEMENT ON THAT, BUT RIGHT.
HOWEVER, HOWEVER, MR. SMITH, WE DID NOT WANT TO USE THE POLICY VERBIAGE IN AN EARLIER QUESTION.
SO ANYWAY, I THINK THAT NUMBER SIX, UH, REALLY ENCAPSULATES THE INTENT BEHIND NUMBER FOUR ON PAGE TWO, I THINK.
TRICIA, I HAVE, UH, A PROCESS QUESTION.
IF I MAY, TRISHA RAISES A GOOD POINT.
WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH POLICY.
I WONDER IF IT WOULDN'T BE A EXERCISE FOR US TO HAVE AN, A BULLET ITEM FOR ALL OF OUR ACTIONABLE POLICIES.
IN OTHER WORDS, AS WE GO THROUGH THESE MEETINGS, HAVE OUR POLICY MANUAL WITH US, RIGHT.
AND LOOK AT THOSE POLICIES AND SAY VERBAL WORD, UM, AND THEN FINISH WHAT THE POLICY SAYS.
SO WE COULD RANK OURS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TRISHA.
AND I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY, IT'S SIMPLE, BUT IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE OF ALL THIS WAY.
YOU ARE TAGGING YOUR ED, HOW ARE YOU ADHERING TO YOUR POLICIES? AND YOU'RE DOING THEM ONE BY ONE, THE ACTIONABLE ONES, OBVIOUSLY, UM, MOST OF THEM ARE.
UM, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP TACKLE THIS? WE'RE DOING MORE THAN JUST THAT THAT'S MY OVERALL ANSWER, BUT WE'RE DOING MORE THAN JUST THAT.
AND EVERYONE, WHEN IT COMES TO THE POLICIES, OUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ALL, WE ALL, WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING THEM, NOT WHAT THEY ARE.
AND WE SHOULDN'T BE RATING STATEMENTS THAT ARE EXACTLY WHAT THE POLICIES ARE.
WE SHOULD BE READY STATEMENTS TO SAY WHETHER WE ARE FOLLOWING THE BUZZERS OR NOT IN OUR ACTIONS.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S THE DILEMMA WE HAVE.
AND EVERY TIME WE GET THROUGH A POLICY ITEM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT RELATES TO POLICY.
WE SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER OUR ACTIONS AS A BOARD IS ADHERING TO WHAT THOSE POLICIES WORK.
AND SOMEWHERE THAT WE CAN EVALUATE
[02:05:01]
THAT AS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, TRYING TO EVALUATE THE WHOLE TOTAL BOARD.AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT THIS.
THAT'S WHY THE THINGS YOU'RE LOOKING AT, ALL OF THOSE ARE SAYING WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL'S THOUGHT, BUT EVERYTHING IS RELATED TO BEING A PART OF A BOARD, NOT NECESSARILY A BOARD POLICY OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT BEING A PART OF THE BOARD.
AND SOME OF THE THINGS BEING A PART OF THE BOARD DOESN'T INCLUDE FOLLOWING THE POLICIES AND ADHERING TO THE POLICIES, BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE RESTRICTED TO THAT.
I AGREE THAT THIS INSTRUMENT IS FAR MORE BEYOND JUST FOLLOWING OUR POLICIES.
WELL, WHEN WE HIT SOME AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I, YOU KNOW, ATTEMPTED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE AND HAVE THAT ENTER DISPERSE ALL OF THE COMPONENTS, YOU KNOW, US SOMEWHERE, SCATTERED, UH, MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SCATTERED, ET CETERA, GOVERNANCE INFORMATION SCATTERED SO THAT PEOPLE CAN FOCUS ON ONE THING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, HEAVY GRADE, THAT AREA YES.
SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS INSTRUMENT PAGE BY PAGE, WE'VE STUMBLED UPON SOME POLICIES THAT WE HAVE.
WELL, I HAVEN'T STUMBLED UPON ALL OF THEM YET.
AND I AGREE WITH TRICIA, LIKE, SHOULD WE, AND PATRICIA, MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THIS.
SHOULD WE ONLY ADDRESS THE ITEMS IN THIS INSTRUMENT THAT HAPPENED TO ALIGN WITH OUR POLICIES AND LEAVE OTHERS OUT? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? LEAVE OTHER POLICIES OUT.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON PAGE ONE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD ALL OF THOSE ITEMS THAT PERTAIN TO, AS I SAY, THE TOUCHY FEELY, THE, YOU KNOW, BOARD MEMBER DEMEANOR AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
AND WE HAVE POLICIES FOR THAT.
BUT SOME OF THESE DON'T, AREN'T ALIGNED WITH OUR POLICIES.
UM, AND THEY MAY POP UP IN A MEETING LATE THROUGHOUT, SHE'LL BE IN INCONSISTENTLY, EVALUATE EVALUATOR ADHERENCE TO THESE, OR, UM, JUST HAVE A CATCH ON, LIKE MEL SAYS THE BOARD FOLLOWS ITS POLICIES AND BE DONE WITH IT.
AND ANY ITEM WE SEE IN HERE IN THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE US, IT ALIGNS WITH THE POLICY.
WE JUST SKIP OVER IT BECAUSE WE COVERED IT IN ONE FELL SWOOP BY SAYING WE FOLLOW POLICIES.
UM, MR. KAMAL, MAY I, YEAH, GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT.
I WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO LOOK BACK AT ALL.
UH, ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE, UM, TENTATIVELY AGREED ON AS A COMMITTEE TO PUT FORTH AS, AS A STATEMENT IN THE EVALUATION, I WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO GO BACK AND NOT ALIGN THEM WITH A POLICY.
I CAN'T PICK OUT ONE NECESSARILY, BUT I THINK WE COULDN'T FIND A POLICY THAT, THAT IS IT.
UM, MY, MY CONCERN, HOWEVER, IS THAT WHEN WE, AS A COMMITTEE ARE PRESENTING THIS TO THE ENTIRE BOARD, SOME OF OUR JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, POLICY AND THEN OTHER TIMES IT HAS BEEN, NO, I DIDN'T LIKE THAT POLICY ANYWAY.
AND THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD ENFORCE THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD USE THAT VERBIAGE.
I WAS JUST CAUTIONING AGAINST LOOKING HYPOCRITICAL, BUT JULIANNE, TO YOUR POINT, I DON'T KNOW, AS I'M LOOKING AT MY HARD COPY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ONE THAT WE COULD NOT SAY TOUCHES POLICY IN SOME FASHION.
HAVE WE COVERED ON THE POLICY? OH GOSH.
HEY, BUT WE STILL HAVE 157 MORE QUESTIONS TO GO THROUGH.
WE WANT TO COVER ALL OUR POLICIES.
I MEAN, IT'S LIKE COVERING EVERY INFORMATION THAT WAS DISPATCHED ON A TEST.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO A GENERAL, THE NEXT EVALUATION MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS ALL TOGETHER, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS FROM NOW, THEY MIGHT BRING IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF QUESTIONING.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE TRYING TO GENERALLY GAUGE WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THIS CRESCENT BOARD, BY PULLING OUT THE QUESTIONS THAT WE THINK ARE RELEVANT.
BUT THEN SOME OF THE ONES ARE VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL GOOD POINTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, ARE WE LOOKING AT IT FROM AN EQUAL HAND BASIS AND PUTTING THAT QUESTION ON.
SO THE TOTAL BOARD CAN EVALUATE IT FROM WHERE WE STAND.
EVERYBODY'S ALL GETTING THEIR POSITION.
I'M NOT NAIVE TO THAT, EVERYBODY AROUND YOU IN THAT POSITION.
SO THAT THIS THING COMES OUT THE WAY THEY WANT IT TO COME OUT.
BUT I DO ASK YOU TO RESPECT WHAT, WHAT THE GOAL IS.
THE GOAL IS FOR US AND LOOK AT THIS THING.
LIKE, I LIKED THAT ONE AND I DON'T WANT TO ALL GET OUT ONE, BUT I DON'T LIKE THIS ONE.
[02:10:01]
ONE.THE GOAL IS, IS THE QUESTION A GOOD QUESTION TO EVALUATE THE BOARD, UM, AND I'M ASKING YOU TO BE TRANSPARENT IN TERMS OF THAT.
UH, UH, I DON'T THINK, I THINK WE ALL HAVE OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, OPINIONS ON IT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT GOAL IN MIND IF WE HAVE REMOVED FORWARD.
WELL, AS WE GET BOGGED DOWN INTO WE ALREADY IN THE POLICY BOOK AND HAVING US CHECKED OFF AND SEE, RATHER THAN A POLICY OF BEING FOLLOWED HIM OUT OF IT, HE CAN DO YES.
AGAIN, THE POLICY MANUAL IS IN FLUX AND UNTIL IT GOES TO ITS FINAL, YOU KNOW, THREE MEETINGS, NONE OF THEM ARE EVEN IN STONE YET.
SO THERE MAY BE CERTAIN POLICIES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE.
WE'RE ALIGNING WITH THAT MAY, YOU KNOW, BE DISCARDED.
SO I JUST WANT TO JUST SAY THAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW.
I REALLY FEEL LIKE EACH OF US IS CONTRIBUTING TOWARD, UM, AN INSTRUMENT THAT WILL EVALUATE THE BOARD.
I PERSONALLY, WHAT I'M TRYING TO INTERJECT ARE HISTORICAL REFERENCES THAT THE PUBLIC SEES, NOT JUST FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD, BUT OTHER ELECTED BODIES.
AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN THERE AND THEY STAY FRONT AND CENTER SUCH AS THE FOYER.
SO CHAZ, YOU KNOW, OFFICERS ACTING LATERALLY.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE NEWS.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE PUBLIC, AND I'M TRYING TO GET THEM IN THERE ALONG WITH POLICY.
YES, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I DISAGREE WITH, BUT THAT'S WHY WE VOTE IN THIS COMMITTEE AND SOME THINGS HAVE FAILED AND THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE.
BUT I WOULD JUST ADVISE US ALL TO STEER CLEAR OF, YOU KNOW, HYPOCRISY WORDS AND THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO, JOANNE, I THINK YOU MAKE A REALLY GOOD POINT THERE.
UM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT OUR COMMUNITIES ARE REALLY TALKING AN AWFUL LOT ABOUT, AND THAT IS THE WAY THAT WE TALK TO EACH OTHER, THE WAY THAT OUR BODY LANGUAGE.
SO, SO MY ONLY POINT IS, IS THAT WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
AND IF HYPOCRISY WAS, IT WAS NOT MEANT AS A JUDGEMENTAL TOWARD ANYBODY OTHER THAN LOOK AT WHAT, LOOK AT THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE ARE CREATING THIS INSTRUMENT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SOUND SO THAT WHEN WE PRESENT IT TO THE FULL BOARD, THEY'RE NOT SAYING, WELL, YOU USE THAT ARGUMENT IN THIS QUESTION, BUT YOU DID NOT USE IT IN THIS QUESTION.
AND IF YOU RECALL, I CLARIFIED THAT.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO US EXHIBITING THOSE POLITE, UM, YOU KNOW, BEHAVIORS.
I WAS OPPOSED TO IT BEING IN THERE.
CAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU POLICE IT OR MEASURE IT.
I KNOW THAT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY.
TRUST ME, I KNOW YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE THERE.
MY ONLY REASON FOR WANTING TO MAD IS THEY WERE JUST, THEY'RE TOUGH TO MANAGE TRISH AND THEY'RE SUBJECTIVE, BUT I'M OKAY WITH IT.
I, AT THE END OF THAT DISCUSSION, I SAID, OKAY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE COMMITTEES.
I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S REALLY BEEN THE BOARD'S WILL FOR SOME TIME.
WELL, IT IS REALLY WANTING TO SEE THAT THAT'S CLEAR, UM, SOME SORT OF MEASUREMENT OF THAT OR SOME SORT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THAT.
UM, I'M NOT ONE OF THEM, BUT I RESPECT THAT.
SO I HOPE YOU DON'T THINK I'M BEING HYPOCRITICAL THERE.
I WANT TO STEER CLEAR THOSE WORDS IN THIS, UH, UM, SEE THAT, SEE, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY.
I WAS NOT ATTRIBUTING THAT TO ANYBODY.
I WAS LOOKING AT US AS A WHOLE COMMITTEE AND ENSURING THAT WHEN WE BRING FORTH THIS DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN, CAN ANSWER TO THE REST OF THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, OKAY, THIS IS OUR THEORY BEHIND THIS.
WE FOLLOWED WHAT THE POLICY WAS.
WE LOOKED AT THE POLICIES ON THIS ONE.
WE, WE WENT WITH JUST, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR GUT.
SO THAT, THAT WAS NOT ATTRIBUTED TO ANY ONE PERSON.
I MEAN, I STRUGGLED WITH THAT WITH MY OWN, LIKE, OKAY, AM I BEING HYPOCRITICAL AND WHY I'M ADVOCATING FOR THIS OR WHY I'M ADVOCATING FOR THAT, THAT I, I KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW ME VERY WELL, BUT I AM NOT THAT JUDGMENTAL KIND OF PERSON THAT WOULD DARE CALL SOMEONE HYPOCRITICAL BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THEIR INTENT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET TO A PROCESS THAT LOOKS TRANSPARENT AND A PROCESS THAT IS EVEN YES, THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE KEY WORD.
[02:15:01]
TAKE THIS TO THE BOARD MEMBERS FEEL LIKE IT WAS DONE IMPARTIALLY, NO FOCUS AT ALL ON ANY PARTICULAR THING, EXCEPT THE BULLETS EFFECTIVENESS.AND WE ALL WROTE A SENTENCE DEFINING WHAT EFFECTIVE BOARD WAS.
SO THE OVERALL THESE THINGS SHOULD BE POINTING TOWARD, DOES IT HELP CREATE A LITTLE EFFECTIVE BOARD OR DOES IT NOT? AND THAT SHOULD BE OUR AGREEABLE, THAT COMMON THREAD THAT GUIDES US AS WE GO ALONG.
I THINK WE'VE HAD ENOUGH FOR THE DAY.
I KNOW I HAVE, SO WE CAN PICK IT UP FROM THIS POINT AT THE NEXT MEETING, IN MY MIND.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE WELL WITHIN A TWO WEEK PERIOD, I BELIEVE TODAY IS THE NIGHTS.
DO YOU MEET AGAIN ON THE 23RD? BUT THERE IS THAT IT'S FRIDAY THE 23RD.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT, WHAT DO WE HAVE THAT DAY? ANYTHING ELSE? AND THEN YOU ALL HAD ALREADY DECIDED MR. CAMPBELL AT THE LAST MEETING.
I ADVOCATED THAT WE PLAN AHEAD.
AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, IT KARMA, UH, MY TWIN BROTHER IS COMING INTO TOWN ON FRIDAY THE 23RD.
AND I DON'T SEE HIM VERY OFTEN.
SO I KNOW I ADVOCATED FOR THE 23RD, BUT I'M GOING TO RE I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO MISS YOUR THREATEN BROTHER AND MY RECOGNIZE THEM.
YEAH, I'M GOING TO GRAB IN SECOND JULY.
AND THEN IT SAYS MEETING ON THE 21ST, UM, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, THE AD HOC BLUFFTON GROUP WAS MEETING ON THE 22ND.
WHAT TIME ARE THEY MEETING? THEY MEET AT FOUR AND YOU ALL STARTED.
THEY CAN BE THE EARLIER I HAVE IN MY MIND.
UH, YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S WHERE I LIVE IN THE CLOUD THAT THURSDAY, 13 DAYS NOW, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO MR. CAMPBELL, WHAT'S OUR HOMEWORK.
WELL, WE NEED, I MEAN, I'M AFRAID TO SAY, LOOK AT THE REST OF THIS STUFF AND DO WHAT WE DID BEFORE.
PICK THE ONES THAT WE THINK NEED TO STAY AND THE ONES THAT NEED TO GO AWAY.
AND IF THEY REALLY HAVE TO CHANGE AND COME UP WITH YOUR IDEAS OF WHAT THE CHANGES WOULD BE, YOU AND JOANNE DOING A GOOD JOB OF THAT.
SO JUST CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND WE'LL HASH IT OUT WHEN WE GET BACK.
WELL, I'VE BEEN, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
WHEN IS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, UM, AND WE'LL PROBABLY KNOWS.
WHEN ARE WE SCHEDULED TO LOOK AT POLICIES AGAIN, AS A BOARD, WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY MEETING SCHEDULED YET.
WHERE ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT AT A WORK SESSION OR A SEPARATE ISOLATED MEETING? IT HAS NOT.
WE'D 10, NOT SCHEDULED A SEPARATE POLICY MEETING YET, AND WE HAVE NOT SET THE AGENDA FOR THE WORK SESSION.
SO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY GET THIS FINISH BASED ON THE OLD POLICY MANUAL.
BY THE TIME WE GET INFORMALIZED A NEW POLICY MANUAL, WE'LL HAVE THIS DONE WOULD BE MY GUESS.
I, YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE RAN INTO THAT KIND OF DYNAMICS WHERE, WHAT IF WE DECIDE WE'LL BE
SO YEAH, I THINK WE JUST CONTINUE TO GO ON WITH THE, WITH THE INTENT THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THE POLICY WILL SAY, EVEN IF IT'S NOT SAYING IT NOW.
CAN WE HAVE OUR KAREN POLICY MANUAL HANDY AND BOYD DOCS.
[02:20:01]
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF THESE ON THE LIST IN FRONT OF US SUGGESTED TO US CONTRADICT IN ANY WAY OR POLICIES, YOU KNOW? RIGHT.ANYTHING ELSE? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN.