Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Write for me dissertation help newcastle for money hrms project report presentation covers Stella and Charles Guttman Community College, search dissertation subjects Eastman School of Music, Mercy College rome ga daily report Richmond. Lander Institute, Jerusalem, Israel saas fee history snow reports new mexico tr1700 cognos report Szold Place zip 10009. Wagner College rapid reports biochemistry definition dissertation for library science Herkimer County Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn Heights, The New School, Lower Manhattan revell 1 32 spitfire mkii review of literature E 77th Street zip 10021.
Write for me dissertation help newcastle for money capstone coffee cheney hours how to buy dissertation introduction on psychology Peters: Welcome to our board meeting. We do have a quorum so I am going to go ahead and proceed. I just want to clarify the reason why we needed to take a break was actually a technical one we needed to Change the tape. Believe it or not. So that is why we had to take the break then so I'm going to conclude my comments and then we're going to call up our internal auditor Andrew Medina who's going to make a presentation to us. I mentioned already the wonderful performance we had from the Dearborn park international students the dancers. Fantastic I have highly recommend watching the tape of tonight's show Show Board meeting with the show at the beginning because it's really worth it. And thank you also to Trent Randall our student from middle college who is with us this evening. I had my last community meeting this past weekend and you know I thought maybe be nice quiet affair with a few people but no standing room only. And the topic the main topic was the growth boundaries and where families in my district which is queen and Magnolia Ballard lower queen and where they're going to be sent. And something that definitely came up was the fact that families feel that transportation was not factored in to some of the plans I guess it’s plan ‘H2’ that's out there right now. The logistics of sending Magnolia families to Wallingford has been has come up as a concern. So obviously we do have to factor in transportation and it can't be just based on maps. It has to be based on realities. And what we're dealing with in terms of bridges construction the realities of what it takes for parents and families to get their kids to school. Let's see the other issues that came up were pathways. One of our speakers tonight from the public used the term family pathways and I thought that was an interesting concept. That's something that we're hearing from our communities as they look at things from their perspective the family perspective on the inside. I think when staff does some analysis of what we're doing. Often things are looked at from a different perspective a practical one or pragmatic want a financial one but it doesn't necessarily mesh with what works best for our families. So I thought the idea of looking at things through the lens of a family pathway was very valuable way of looking at things and so on that includes whether we allow siblings to grandfather whether things are practical in terms of distance. You know we have to look at it that way. So our families can be best served because ultimately that is our goal. Walkability was another issue that came up and then if our students at the high school level especially if they're having to take a bus home one of those bus routes look like let's not presume that we have ideal bus routes for our students. And so these are all our considerations. I did tell the families that came to my meeting that nothing has been decided yet. We've got some different plans out there and right now the district is in the process of gathering information and feedback from the community. And nothing has been officially presented to the board yet. And so now is the time to weigh in. So I wanted to thank our athletics our phys. ed representatives who are here tonight and I have to say one of the educators who was called out was Ms. Bader and a personal note. She taught both of my children and once upon a time at Lowell elementary I had a student there and one of the programs they have there is they do have a very medically medically fragile program. And Ms Bader oversaw the adapted physical ed program there and using a company called access for all students would go on on the little field trips and they would have bicycles and they'd have things they could ride regardless of what their abilities were. And students who were not disabled able bodied students were asked to come along as as buddies for these students. And my son was asked to be a buddy and I have to tell you that to me was one of the most valuable experiences he had at that school. And so it's something that is that is dear to me and I'm really glad to hear we are expanding those sorts of programs. On another topic that came up at my community meetings was the topic of Naviance which has been mentioned by other directors. And so again this is a case where we are trying to find a tool to help our students. But whatever the student data attached to something we have to be extremely careful of how we use that data. Who gets to use it how it's transmitted. And so we are duly wary of how this is going to be used. And so we're asking lots of questions and that's one of the reasons we're not voting on it tonight was because staff is doing their homework for us and getting answers for us so that when we do come to vote for it we're fully informed and have the right things in place so that you know if we do support it, we can feel comfortable about supporting it. And let's see someone brought up the point that it's hard for the public to come to our meetings and I am sorry about that. One thing we did do though was it used to be that the public speaking time started at 5 o'clock and we heard from the public. It was very hard to get down here at that time during rush hour so we bumped it to 5:30 and that's something we've done for the past couple years. I hope that's made it a little bit easier for people. But we definitely are hearing from you hearing your concerns and trying to accommodate them. And transportation OK I think that's them just make sure I get everything off my list. OK. And the last thing I want to do is a little shout out for our various musical students throughout the district. I went to the Jazz symposium that was sponsored by the Edmonds school district over the weekend and we had think it was six different schools from public schools represented there. We had Nathan Hale Hamilton international Eckstein Jane Adams Middle School Roosevelt High School and Ballard High School. They all had jazz bands jazz ensembles or combos who all participated in this event and it was fantastic. And there were schools from other districts as well. And it was a noncompetitive event. It was simply kids being able to perform at at a high school theater and then they would go and have an expert come and give them feedback on what they were doing it was really wonderful event. So congratulations to all the bands that got to participate in that and it was thoroughly enjoyable. So I thank you to director of Burke, whose kind words earlier, I have certainly enjoyed working with him and all my colleagues and there is… I'm sure I'll have more to say next time in our next meeting our final. Some of us our final meeting. So without any further ado I am now going to invite our internal auditor Andrew Madina to come to the podium and present to us his report. OK and thank you for your patience OK. Medina: Andrew Medina director of internal director of internal audit and ethics officer and I'm here to provide two annual reports. The first is the internal audit report that requires I do a annual report on the audits completed major audit findings corrective actions taken by management and significant findings not addressed by management. This slide shows the — that audits be completed this year. We completed 11 audits this year which is consistent with our productivity from prior years. The next three slides identify some of our make or more significant findings. These are not presented in any order of severity but they do represent some of the findings that we will want to continue to monitor to ensure that corrective action is taking place. I will let you read them but I am not planning to go through each individual finding in detail. Mostly due to time constraints but also because the internal audit process is all already very transparent. Each finding is discussed in detail at a public audit and finance committee meeting. All of our reports are made public on our department website and at the. Next regular school board meeting. The chair of audit and finance makes an announcement of any completed audit internal audits. For the corrective action plans, I just want to it’s important to note that the corrective action process is actually a management function. As internal auditors we make recommendations only we do not have any authority to direct staff write procedures or design internal control internal controls. The district employs an audit response manager who assists departments in developing corrective action plans all the corrective action plans have to be approved by the superintendent and are then distributed to the audit and finance committee and then the audit and finance committee also receives quarterly updates on the status of those corrective action plans. To date we have issued 375 recommendations. Of those 1 percent are overdue and 14 sorry less than 1 percent are overdue and 14 percent are in progress. We issued 75 new recommendations this year compared with 49 the prior year. The number of overdue items has dropped from seven to two. Two years ago four percent of our audit recommendations were overdue. Last year it dropped to 2 percent and this year we're down to 0.5 percent. So that shows that management is making progress towards our corrective actions and taking our recommendations seriously. We do not have any disagreements with management on our on our findings. They have concurred with all of our items. However some items take a bit longer to resolve. Currently the open ones are related to bargaining. They got some. Labor negotiations involved. For the annual ethics report. I'll go through the number and types of contacts received the percentage of contacts received anonymously and the status of the ethics training program. So every contact that I receive I log and categorize them into one of 10 categories. This chart illustrates the breakdown of the different types of contacts that I have been receiving for another year. The majority of the contacts received are advisory opinions. I think this is encouraging because it demonstrates that employees are. Trying to do the right thing and they're being proactive in contacting the ethics office before they actually go out and take action on something. And overall workload has remained consistent since I've taken over the Ethics Officer responsibilities I've been averaging about seven contacts per month. The slide shows the total number or the percentage of contacts that are submitted anonymously. However I'm not a real fan of this slide because it shows all contacts including items such as advisory opinions and conflict of interest disclosures which aren't normally submitted anonymously. So the next slide is specific to complaints I receive. For 62 percent of whistleblower complaints and 81 percent of personnel complaints are submitted to my office anonymously but only 33 percent of miscellaneous complaints and 43 percent of ethics complaints are anonymous. I think this information is important because having a high percentage of anonymous complaints could indicate that there's maybe a lack of trust involved with the investigation process. Last year I was asked if I could trend the anonymous complaints to see if there's any sort of trend of whether or not they're increasing or decreasing. So I was able to do that for the whistleblower complaints and the ethics complaints. So you can see the there is the percentage of anonymous whistleblower complaints is increasing. However the number of anonymous ethics complaints is decreasing. So this could indicate there is a degree of trust but the ethics investigation process but there still may be some concern with the whistleblower process. The ethics training program is largely unchanged but I have made some improvements to the ethics Web site. The Web site now contains more information about the whistleblower investigation process that also includes a FAQ document that employees can reference to. For some common ethics topics that I encounter on the Web site also now includes an online reporting form so people can submit a complaint directly from the ethics website. Those are all improvements from last year. Ethics Training is included in new employee orientation and I will respond to any requests for training. But there is still not a formalized ethics training program. We do have a- Our media operations center is available to develop some online training material but as of yet those resources haven't been made available to cover those costs. The audit Finance Committee has approved next year's audit plan. It is available on the public web page along with copies of all of our completed audit reports. And then before opening it up to questions I did want to highlight that the white paper on internal auditing in great city schools is now complete. I emailed you an electronic version and I placed hard copies in your box in the Board Office so in the past, at council of great city schools conferences, I presented I led a session on best practices and internal auditing. Then I've also done some benchmarking on the internal audit function. Those were shared with the council and received some very positive feedback in response to that. The council reached out to me and asked if I would co-lead this White Paper Project. We assembled a team of volunteers and created a task force. I drafted the introduction and the executive summary and then provided guidance to all the volunteers. Each volunteer authored a different section within The white paper as they would do their draft they would submit it to me. I'd review it provide some feedback after a series of edits. We got to one document and then the council made a CPA firm available to us to provide additional edits. And then at last year's conference with the internal auditors all the internal auditors in attendance did a very thorough review of the document. So there were a lot of eyes involved in this project what caused it to be a bit of a lengthy project but at the same time I think it ended up being a very thorough document. I did present it last month to the councils at the Council's annual Fall Conference in Cleveland. So far the feedback that the council has received has been very positive. The two main themes that I'd like to highlight from the White Paper. The first one being independence throughout the document you'll note that we've talked about the importance of having an independent internal audit function and the benefit of that is if you're into your internal audit function as independent you can rest assured that your results and reports are going to be objective and honest and that allow for better decision making for the school board district management and also for the public. The second theme is that the school that the internal audit function shouldn't just be limited to you know financial transactions or school activity audits internal audit should really be viewed as a resource to help identify significant operational and compliance issues that were prevented district from achieving its objectives. So within each section of the white paper we've identified the best practices for that topic and we've also identified a value statement as to. If you implement as to why implementing those best practices is going to be of value to your school district. I did meet with the deputy superintendent earlier this week to discuss some of these topics and he and I will be meeting on a monthly basis going forward to continue that conversation along with Assistant Superintendent of business and finance. So I encourage you to read it and please reach out to me if you have any questions or observations on the document. Peters: Do we have some comments? Dir Pinkham? Pinkham: A thank you for your presentation on the slide where you're showing about the number or percentage of whistleblower and ethics the change in it over the years. Did you also have something that would show the number for each over the years? Because I would hate to see that increase so much because like two out of three.. Medina: So that's a great question because for this year's current years whistleblower complaints I think there's only one or two that are in that sample of a hundred. So there are quite a bit of that there's more ethics complaints that come in than whistleblower the whistleblower definition as defined by R CW. So not every — That's why we have the miscellaneous complaint category also because not every complaint technically qualifies as whistleblower but there is a greater population for the ethics complaints than there is for the whistle blower complaints. So I don't have the specific numbers with me but I do. I can get those to you if you. Harris: Is the chair of audit and finance. I just want to say thank you really hugely appreciate your work. Medina: Thank you. I want to thank you all for the support too. Very helpful. Peters: Dir Blanford? Blanford: As a member of the audit and finance committee, I would say that first off one of the biggest and one of the heaviest responsibilities that we have is school board directors is the fiscal stewardship of funds that have been entrusted to us to serve the students that we have been entrusted to our care. And when we have a good sense that both fiscally and performance wise that that we're a well-managed organization it gives us the comfort to be able to go into the community and articulate the positions that we want to take. And so it it makes my heart warm to know that you have not only done good work inside of the district but you've been recognized amongst your peers nationally to lead this project and to to present it out to the board members and superintendents across the nation. It's been a pleasure working with you over these years. And whereas I don't always appreciate every aspect audit and finance and service on that committee. Usually when we're having conversation I always learn something. I always leave from those conversations feeling like that aspect of our operations are running extremely well. And so I want to thank you for your leadership and for your leadership not only of the district but your leadership nationally. So thank you. Thank you. Peters: OK. I'll just close by saying as the former chair of the Finance Committee I also had a chance to work with you and even not you. Aside from that I appreciate the work you've done. It's really important for us to maintain that level of oversight and independence and this is something that the districts set up many years ago was like I got six seven years ago and I think it was a wise choice to have this in place and I think we've had some good results as a result of it. We haven't had as many issues as the district has had in the past. So thank you very much for your work. So we now actually have to go back to our consent agenda. So we have reached back to the consent agenda portion of tonight. And I have a motion for the consent agenda. I move we approve the consent agenda. Pinkham: I second the motion. Peters: OK let's see. Do you have any items they would like to remove from the consent agenda. None. All in favor of the consent to signify by saying Aye. All: Aye. Peters: All oppose the consent agenda has passed. So now we leap to the action portion of the meeting. So the first item. On board policy number 5 0 1 0 is right. Non-discrimination affirmative action adopt new board policy number 5 2 0 7. Prohibition of harassment intimidation and bullying and adopt new boy policy number 5 2 4 5. Anti retaliation. May we please hear from the chair of the audit Finance Committee. Harris: This matter was approved on. Excuse me this matter was moved on October 9th for consideration. Codd: Hello Clover Codd assistant superintendent of human resources and. Stewart: Jon Stewart deputy general counsel. Good evening. Codd: Good evening. So since introduction we have made changes to the bar and policies based on the comments that were presented in introduction by directors. We would like to go over those changes. We also want to make it clear on what the board is and is not voting on tonight. Several things have come up over the last week. We want to address those and they will answer questions so I. Have an agenda for how to get through this so that it remains in order. So changes to the bar. So we made it transparent that staff will develop a fair and appropriate hearing process and establish written guidelines for what occurs before during and after a discrimination appeal hearing we commit to report back to the board how the processes are working and determine if modifications need to be made. And we did a further equity analysis and added that to the equity section and then we changed from non retaliation to anti retaliation per your request. And John's going to talk about the changes in policy. Stewart: So we have three policies that we're asking the board to prove tonight. The first one is I'm turning to my sticky 5010 and from introduction we had a comment related to the district will not discriminate against any veteran who was dishonorably discharged solely because of their sexual orientation. We included gender identity or other protected classification listed in Section 1 of this policy. So there was some discrimination by the U.S. military related to what we consider to be a protected class like religion or ancestry that we would not discriminate and not hire that individual if they were terminated from the military for that purpose. So that's the one change we made to that policy. The policy on 5207 we ended- We added an and or two prohibition of intimidation and bullying in the second paragraph. And then. With respect to the what was the non retaliation policy we've change that to the anti retaliation policy in the header and in section 1. Those were the changes to the policy. Codd: Thank you John. OK. So what is the board voting on tonight? What is the board not voting on tonight? I think there's some confusion. Want to make sure we're clear and we'll talk about next steps. So you are voting to adopt a new adult harassment intimidation and bullying policy. We did not have a separate adult policy on that. It was in the 3000 series where we have the student Hib policies and procedures so we broke that apart. And we're presenting to you for action a new adult harassment intimidation and bullying policy. We also made A change to that discrimination policy to include that we will not discriminate against veterans who may have been dishonorably discharged because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We also included other protective classes. And then you also are voting on adopting a new board policy with respect to anti retaliation. So that is what the board is voting on is those three policies. There are superintendent procedures that accompany these. And the board is not voting on those tonight. But we put them in the bar for context so that people understand when they're looking at the policy and they're looking at the procedure how things go together. We worked with labor partners internal staff board directors superintendent to make sure that we proposed changes that were acceptable to all. And those edits were presented at introduction not because you're voting on them but because we wanted to be transparent in our process. So since that time directors have expressed additional changes that they think are important and need to be included. We have not had time to properly engage staff or our labor partners on what the directors are proposing. So to make sure you understand we're not moving superintendent procedure 50 10 forward to the superintendent at this time for signature or the reporting impropper governmental actions and protecting whistle blower superintendent procedure at this time for Superintendent procedure so we can do more collaborative work engage the right stakeholders and make sure people feel comfortable before they go to the superintendent. But again tonight you are not voting on the procedures you're voting on the policies. So now open up for questions. Peters: Director Blanford. Blanford: So I wasn't part of the conversation around the change to from nondiscrimination to anti-discrimination or I got that wrong. Anti retaliation from non retaliation to anti retaliation. And I'm not familiar with what the impact of that change would be nor am I familiar with the rationale for making the change. Stewart: The request was from a board member that they thought it added more clarity or prior policy was anti retaliation staff thought non retaliation was potentially clear, but I think both of them get the message when you look at the substance of the policy so we defer to the board's request that it be an anti retaliation policy. Blanford: And if I can follow up is knowing that the language of this may have implications for a future lawsuit. I'm wondering if that language is accepted in the legal profession. Is it going to get us into any kind of trouble?. Stewart: Not that I can foresee at this time. I think that language works to protect the people who report misconduct. Harris: Thank you for the lengthy heavy lift on this. I appreciate it's been frustrating. I appreciate it it's been a lengthy back and forth iterative process with any number of stakeholders. Hugely appreciate it and recognize the good work. With respect to the superintendent procedures. I think often that the superintendent procedures are not as clear where they sit. With respect to policy superintendent procedures board procedures administrative procedures. Because the board has the internal auditor and the ethics officer. It would seem to me that there is further work to be done on the Superintendent procedures and potentially splitting some of that out to board procedures because the whistleblower piece may well belong in the board's portfolio since the ethics officer an internal auditor reports to the board and and I appreciate your giving us your word that we'll continue on this path and untangle a process that is not very clear. Burke: I wanted to also echo director Harris's gratitude. I know that this has been. A lengthy dance and it's really it's one of these things that I struggle with as a as a director because I guess one of the ways I vetted this was I guess I sent this information to two people that I'm familiar with and one that's a former educator and one that's a former volunteer and I said What do you think about this as a document? Would this have helped in in your engagement with the district and provided a better experience in you know the bumpy ride that you had and the feedback I got in both cases was “hmm… Probably not.” Because really what matters is is that we engage with each other as as respectful humans. And by the time it gets to this. It's it's pretty much too late. So it's that's the conversation with with people who have been affected struck me that this this work this is really like I liken it to the insurance policy on the car that you keep in the garage and you only drive once a year. That really the place where we want to focus is not on this policy we want it to protect us we want it to exemplify our values but the place where we need to work is on the culture and I say that knowing that that's the place where you are working and have been working. And I want to turn this conversation to end on that from my point of view that I want to thank you for putting that effort there. As well as protecting the legal aspects. Peters: Thank you for making that point I agree that that is where the main focus needs to be. But this is a tool we need to have in the event that something has broken down and we need to make sure everybody has the fair process to resolve the issues. So I appreciate what Dr. Codd was explaining about the superintended procedures and I just wanted to follow up on that because we did start a very interesting conversation about this at the last meeting. And as a result of that we have worked on the language and the superintendent procedure pertaining to the hearing examiner component of the process. And I think something that troubled a number of us was the fact that the board seemed to no longer have an oversight role in an appeals process and the appeals are when an employee has gotten some sort of determination by either another staff member or the superintendent and they are not content with that. And so there's an appeals process that's built in that traditionally has gone to the school board. This now takes it to an outside hearing examiner. And what we decided to do was to have the hearing examiner bring forth a recommended decision but we still will have a process a layer in which the board will have a chance to review the decision and to ask some questions and since the school board may either adopt the decision remanded the decision for further fact finding by the hearing examiner or adopt a different decision based on the facts found by the hearing examiner. So I think that was a really good hybrid. It allows us to handle this challenging task to somebody who may have the more professional aptitude for it but it still allows the board to have some measure of oversight which is what was expected from from our employees from we're working so hard on this particular document to make sure that it is alligns what with board duties and expectations. Thank you. Codd: And I just want to make it clear to the public that what is posted online is a draft and we have not engaged labor partners or internal staff stakeholders so we just want to make that very clear. I think we're we're very close to a middle ground from what we put in introduction and where we are is to make sure we get both of these right. But I wanted to make that clear. Peters: Thank you. Dir Pinkham. Pinkham: I brought up the corners and introduced about the use of the word repeated was how was that vetted out to word still says here in the workplace refers to repeated. Codd: We thought we added and or so that it could be — Pinkham: Or about being a volunteer employee and or volunteer. Codd: I thought we had made a change in that policy by adding and or it was in our highlighted notes so it may not have made it to the Final — Stewart: So I think that I left the notes for somebody to transcribe it and they put the and or for employee and or volunteer it should be HIB in the workplace refers to repeated and or unreasonable is that the comment?. So I was out of town for 10 days and had our chance to prof the edit so I apologize. I think if if we can make that edit put it up and have voted on that would be the correct verbage nice catch. Peters: Dir Pinkham. Would you like to amend it thusly? Do I have to make a motion? Harris: Should be an ammendment. Pinkham: No. Then I move to amend the harassment intimidation bullying section 1 second paragraph moving the and or after repeated and before un reasonable. Harris: Second in motion to amend. Peters: OK would anyone like to discuss this motion? We'd like to vote on this motion. OK Ms Shek the roll call please. Shek: Dir Blanford. Blanford: Aye director. Shek: Dr. Geary. Geary: Aye. Shek: Dr. Harris. Harris: Aye. Shek: Dr. Patu. Patu: Aye. Shek: Dr. Pinkham. Pinkham: Aye. Shek: Dr. Peters. Peters: Aye. Shek: This amendment has passed unanimously. Peters: Are there any other questions or comments about it. Pinkham: Just I want to again thank you also for the work on this. And I just as I look at this one this is about our employees and volunteers. And I'd be curious to look at what it says for students when it comes to HIB. In particular for some of our natives that there is a rise in for many of our native cultures to return to some of the traditional practices that takes them away from school time and how that is handled an approach. In particular I can talk about the Sundance you know more of our native children are getting involved in that and trying to pass it on. And so they have to go back to certain areas and it goes through that. That we need to be sensitive to those issues and also as far as length of hair when it comes to athletics. I know that sometimes that coaches way no you must cut your hair to play in our sport. I don't know that how that is handled but just be something I'd be curious to see if we're ready to handle such things. Peters: OK. There's no further questions or comments. I'm going to ask Director Harris to read the motion in for the record, I'm not sure that we did that. I apologize. Harris: I move that school board amend board policy number 5 0 1 0 nondiscrimination and affirmative action and adopt board policies numbers 5 2 0 7 prohibition of harassment intimidation and bullying. And number 5245 anti retaliation as attached to the board action report. Pinkham: Do we need to specify 5207 as amended? Harris: 5207 as amended. Pinkham: I second the motion. Peters: OK. So at that point I think we are ready for the roll call. Shek: Dir. Blanford? Blanford: Aye. Shek: Dir Burke? Burke: Aye. Shek: Dir Geary? Geary: Aye Shek: Dr. Harris. Harris: Aye. Shek: Dir. Patu? Patu: Aye. Shek: Dr. Pinkham. Pinkham: Aye. Shek: Dr. Peters. Peters: Aye. Shek: This motion as amended has passed unanimously. Thank you. Peters: We now move on to the next item on the agenda and that is repealing the school governance structures policy and procedures F 20.00 F20.01 And F20.02 and adopting new board policy number 4 1 4 0 collaborative governance structures. May I hear from the chair of the audit and finance committee and then we will. Know I guess we do the motion in and second read the motion and first. Harris: I move that the school board repeal policy F 20 and board procedure f twenty point zero one an F 20 point zero 2 and adopt a new policy number 4 1 4 0. Collaborative governance structures as attached to the board action report. Pinkham: I second the motion. Peters: Now when we hear from the chair of the curriculum and instruction policy committee. Burke: This was heard curriculum instruction policy committee October 10th and move forward to the board for consideration. Van Duzer: Good evening directors, Nate Van Duzer director of policy and Board relations. So as quick recap from last time. This is a action that would replace two one policy and two board procedures that were last updated in ’96 with new policy language that speaks to the importance of collaborative governance structures and we are making this change because the older policies had language that were not in alignment with current practice because practice is shaped by the CBA the collective bargaining agreement with the Seattle Education Association. Specifically the language in that document around building leadership teams and program leadership teams. Since introduction we have put more detailed language into the policy in response to the conversation we had two weeks ago where there is a desire to have a little bit more in the policy about what we wanted in these structures. This language is in alignment with what's in the current CBA but it's not at a level that so detailed that it's likely to be out of date the next time changes are made to the CBA. It's had a kind of topical level it that way and language is shown and track changes in your packet we'd be happy to answer any questions. Peters: Any questions questions or comments? So I wanted to point out that comment was made in public commentary about the board relinquishing its oversight through this, but it does state here that collaborative governance structures will recognize and observe existing policies and procedures collective bargaining agreements, other district agreements, and applicable laws. So it doesn’t- There are still policies that will need to be followed. And I think what we identified in our last discussion about this two weeks ago was sometimes collective bargaining agreements change policy. And so if we don't want that to happen then that has to be something that happens during the collective bargaining process. At that time. So are there any? Director Blanford. Blanford: Do the changes that we're talking here have any impact on our on the collective the current collective bargaining process. Codd: No not the changes that you see here tonight. So. Not the changes that you see here and track changes. Blanford: OK. Harris: Ask a question of director Blanford? When you say current collective bargaining process are you talking about the collaborative work that has already started for the next collective bargaining agreement? Or are we talking about the collective bargaining agreement currently in effect? I was Not sure. Blanford: When I asked that question and I was primarily concerned with the flexibility that is necessary to get to a agreement between our labor partners and the school district and not wanting or wanting to be sure that we had maximum flexibility. Primarily because Board members in the past I don't know how it will happen in the future but board members in the past have tried to have some distance away from the day to day negotiations that go on and have entrusted that responsibility to you know our senior leadership which has taken on that role. And so as I was reading this I was just thinking to myself and just wondering does this have any negative impact on the flexibility and the nimbleness that is necessary to actually get to an agreement. So that's why I ask that question. Codd: I think that the key verbs here are they will recognize and observe existing policy. So there's nothing in those words that would impact negotiations process or a collective bargaining agreement process at all. Peters: Dir. Burke? Burke: I just wanted to say thanks for the edits. I think that this is a nice sort of parallel construct with the work that's done in the CBA and feels like a it's sort of a. formula capturing that work on our side on the policy. And so thank you for that. Peters: Any comments or questions. Dir. Harris? Harris: This one has cost me more.. I don't have a good word for it. More consternation perhaps. Because I am very much a huge fan of our labor partners. I am very much a huge fan of innovation at our schools because what works needs to be replicated. I'm very much in favor of collaborative work. But I struggled mightily with the lack of definition of administrative oversight and responsibility. And and I'm. I'm probably going to abstain from this not because I don't support this good work. But because. People elected us to make policy an a good bit of policy has already been abrogated in the collective bargaining agreements in years past. And my refrain when am I going to see a chart that shows administrative oversight and building base management and doing this when problems come up. I have difficulty when high school principals can decide on an individual basis which online learning programs are acceptable for that high school when the high school a mile away. Does accept those online programs. There is a granularity to some of the decisions that are made here and an inconsistency to some of the decisions that are made by building based management that I am hugely uncomfortable with because I believe that the voters think that that policy belongs on the people they can throw out of office if they don't like the results. Thank you. Peters: Dir Geary. Geary: Thank you for the work on this. I see a lot of what's been discussed incorporated in the language from all different levels. I think from my perspective this raises the issue that gets to what director Harris is saying but I don't think this is the place to resolve it. It's that as we go forward and issues are brought to us what is our assurance that what is being brought to us isn't in violation of an existing policy somewhere? And so I know we've talked about that a little bit and I was wondering. What work is being done and or do we need to consider a board policy that just makes anything that moves forward without that being highlighted to us reversible or, or null and void for failure to follow existing policy? How are we moving forward on that issue which I think is the underlying what has been exposed in this. Codd: Yeah. So Director Peters has been working on that and a different policy so let her speak to that. That's not before you tonight. That's not part of this is something totally separate and different policy. But director Peter. Peters: Yes so directly to that point something that I think I ended up identifying as a result of our conversation two weeks ago was that when we get to this point we've already got things in place. We've already got the CBA and the CBA has to honor whatever the existing policies are. You know but but what we realize is over the years policies have changed because they've been potentially part effectively bargained away. So we have a policy on collective bargaining and that's what I'm working on. And what I've done is I've made it an adjustment in there to do exactly what you were saying which is to say to establish that if anything in collective bargaining is going to change your policy the board needs to be apprised of that they need to be apprised of which policies are going to be affected, and the board has to be to approve that basically. So that we don't end up with just a CBA at the end that we have to vote up or down on. That has some components that we were unaware of. So we're still fine tuning the details of this but the idea is for the board not to ever be in a position where it's unwittingly agreeing to policy being changed or rendered irrelevant by something in a bargaining situation. Codd: Yes. So. So I think there's an initial draft around that. And there's much more work to do we need to be very careful with the language. So that we don't find ourselves in a situation where labor partners might say you're not bargaining in good faith. They're sort of you've already predetermined there are certain things that you can bargain in certain things that you can't. So I know that our legal team and Stan have been doing a little bit of research on that. So we'll talk about that more not tonight because it's not applicable to what you're voting on tonight, but we'll need to be very careful with the language. We want to get that you know that capture the spirit and the intent of what you're saying. But make sure that it's not violating any of our state laws with respect to bargaining and that. Peters: Dir Blanford? Blanford: Is there a time line for this document to come before the board? Codd: I believe Director Peters plans on bringing it to the next executive committee which I don't remember the date of the next executive committee. Peters: That the next executive committee meeting is next week. Blanford: Following up on that. Peters: It makes it through the committee then it will be introduced as the 15th. Pinkham. Pinkham: Thank you for this work and it just seems kind of a ah, what do I — word again- sad to me that we're seemed like we’re needin’ to write a new policy because of an oversight that allowed a collective bargaining agreement to go through that was violating policy in the first place. So as we look at how we can address this cause I know it says ‘alternatives’ the board may choose not to take any action but it's not recommended as I would leave in place policy language that is overridden by current CBA language causing continued confusion for the public. So seems like we're changing something here because if something happened the CBA. Which which seems it should have came up to us ahead of time. Codd: Sure. So I think the big sticking point here is that 20 years ago, then Superintendent John Stanford, then executive director of SEA, then board, don't know who was on the board 20 years ago, entering into a commitment around the building leadership team structure was a massive decision and it was not an oversight. And it was something that everybody was well informed. It was a very big deal. It was a very important collective bargain both for SEA and for the district. So I think we need to be careful to talk about — because there are there are potentially some policies that we may not — there may be some oversight, there may be something that we haven't thought of, and we need to do a thorough policy review before we bring a collective bargaining agreement forward. But I think with respect to building based management, site based leadership, building leadership teams that was a very intentional decision at that time by that board, by that superintendent, and by the Seattle Education Association. So I think it's important to just put that on the record. Pinkham: Ok. Thank you. Just wondering if there's any language you can add in here that this new policy in no way diminishes board oversight. Van Duzer: I would say that in the current collective bargaining policy it already highlights how the board has to approve any collective bargaining agreement. And that's in state law as well. So the that coverage exists within the policy book already. Peters: And one last point I'll make is again we just we mentioned this last time we discussed this was there is a state law that says that collective bargaining agreements effectively override policy. And so that's the framework we're working within. So if we don't want an agreement to change a policy then we have to figure that out ahead of time. Well I'm going to. Codd: Don't approve that the collective bargaining Agreement that you don't agree with. Peters: Right. Right now all right well if there's no further questions or comments on Ms. Shek the roll call please. Shek: Dr. Geary. Geary: Aye. Shek: Dr. Harris. Harris: Abstain. Shek: Dr. Patu. Patu: Aye. Shek: Dr. Burke. Burke: Aye. Shek: Dr. Blanford. Blanford: Aye. Shek: Dr. Pinkham. Pinkham: Aye. Shek: Dir Peters. Peters: Aye. Shek: This has passed with the vote of 6 to 0 to 1. Peters: Item 3 adoption of board resolution 2017/18 — 3 career and technical education CTE partnerships may I have a motion? Harris: I move that school board adopt resolution 2017/18-3 career and technical education CTE partnerships as attached to the board action report. Pinkham: I second the motion. Peters: May I please hear from the chair of the curriculum and instruction committee? Speaker 44: Curriculum instruction committee moved this forward October 10th to the full board for consideration. Speaker 22: Has anything changed since introduction? Director Burke. Speaker 45: Nothing on this has changed. I will bring up that since this was introduced in the Washington State PTA adopted a post-secondary higher ed resolution and I wanted to publicly acknowledge the work of Heidi Bennett in this in support of the career aligned work and CTE classes. So that's a body of work that has been going on for a couple of years and has made it to the PTA platform level this year. Another example of potential partnerships and what I consider to be sort of a perfect storm. In this area. Peters: There Any questions or comments about this item? Dir. Pinkham. Pinkham: So after the passing of this resolution hopefully we are going to reach out to women and minority owned businesses locally and say hey look at what we passed so we can start that dialogue with them about how we can use this CTE. And I did forward you an e-mail that I got from the Associate school of engineering education or American Society of engineering educators about CTE. Peters: Dir Geary? Geary: With this passed, I’d like, and our all the work that we're doing around re revisioning high school and the 24 credits. I really would like to take this opportunity as we talk about the changing of high school to when we have those discussions to get examples of how we're weaving in opportunities for CTE for all kinds of students. And that discussion should be geographically and interest based so that we can have a good understanding of how accessible the CTE is to our different students around our district and what type of opportunities they have and how we are making it available to them. And I just point that out because I think we're having so many conversations that I just want that to be built in to every conversation as we move forward. And if it's not I will ask. Thank you. Peters: Dir Harris? Harris: Can you assist me in understanding what you mean I understand about geographic base but interest based? Geary: I know that different CTE opportunities are designed around not every location has the same opportunities. And so I just want to have an understanding of how a student who lives in south Seattle what that means in terms of them traveling to get to an interest based form of CTE and how that melds in with their obtaining the credits necessary to graduate. It goes back to us making decisions but really having a deep understanding of what that means to our kids on the ground and and how accessible it is so that we don't find all of a sudden that something we thought was really cool is withering on the vine because somehow the pathways of accessibility haven't been thought about and fostered. Harris: Thank you. Peters: Dir Blanford. Blanford: There was an opportunity to provide some information or opportunity for input into the final language of this resolution. And at that time I shared a desire to know more about the rationale undergirding the resolution and I think it would be good for for the public the viewing public to have that understanding if you could share that. Burke: Absolutely. So the I I did provide the email to you that had that. But. Really there's three sort of areas where I think one of them and I probably should just go back to the email and read it. But there is a a body of of of evidence which is is fairly strong. That shows that students that enroll in CTE classes have a higher graduation rate or as an indication of a greater engagement with the academic content. And we've heard a lot of qualitative studies but we also have quantitative data from some of our programs and some other evidence from other districts and so identifying that this is an element of an educational system which really contributes to our our gap closing mission and higher attendance and higher student engagement makes it seem like wow we should be doing more of this. So it sort of builds in with our existing imperative. The second part of it is that well if it's such a great thing why don't we do more of it. And the reality of our financial situation is we can't grow additional programs. We don't have the funding to take a program and grow it without additional support. You know we have to the dollars follow the students. But CTE programs are typically a little bit more expensive and in some cases a lot more expensive than traditional classroom programs. And the state funding formula recognizes that in some cases but anything that we want to start up there's an investment curve. So building from our 11 percent CTE participation that we have now, to something that's more on the upper team teens 16 18 19 percent which is more typical of our surrounding districts is not something that we're really in a financial position to do. Given all the other initiatives we've got going on. So then the third part of that is relates to well if it's a good thing and if we can't fund it how do we do it? And also recognizing that CTE is it's like a career preparation thing and we do K-12. But how do we really bridge our kids into careers. And that involves things that are beyond the K-12 realm. So looking at partnerships that provide those bridges provide funding supports provide curriculum support provide teacher training provide workforce experience and opportunities for our students. Those are all areas that don't really fit in our K-12 bucket but are really important factors to the success of this work. So that's kind of the the premise behind this is reaching out to the community to say hey we think this is important. We can't do it without you. Will you help us. Blanford: If I can follow up. I didn't provide this piece of philosophy that I think may not actually reside in this document but should be considered and that is I come from a community of people who feel very strongly that when we increase the amount of CTE offerings and encourage students to pursue those offerings that the student gets to make the choice. That it's not a choice that adults should make for students. It's a choice that the students and their families get to make. I don't know that that belongs in this document but some where. As a philosophical statement is a statement that the board agrees to. I believe that there should be some recognition that education systems frequently will push kids towards CTE offerings to the detriment of their other choices because it sometimes becomes easier to do that and that we should actively resist the opportunity to push kids but to encourage them to explore their options and to make the choice that they and their families think is in the best interest of the student is a piece that I think needs to find its place somewhere in some document. I don't know that this is the right one. Peters: Dr. Geary. Geary: I appreciate that very much. And while we don't necessarily want to hold this up now for that I think that there is that principle that and again it goes back to I think what has been raised around the naviance tool and its directive aspects and how we as a board can make tools that are available but also protect our kids from being tracked by somebody perception that isn't theirs or their families. And I think that that is something that we should think about in terms of making a fundamental principle in how we judge what we are using and how we are marketing or guiding our students. So thank you for raising that. Dir Harris.? Speaker 50: Both director Blanford and director Geary's comments bring me back to the concept that we have a critical shortage of high school counselors and that if we don't have high touch and if we don't have real relationships and true guidance then we're not doing right by our students. And we have got to figure out a way to have more mentors. And more counselors if we indeed are going to have our students career and college ready. It's it's painful. To think that we. Have not been able to prioritize that. And highly sad and ironic. Burke: I would love to touch on that topic because I appreciate Dr. Blandford bringing that up. That is absolutely the mindset that that has provided a lot of the the the space to have these conversations. And when I've talked to people they've they've described how is that historically the environment wasn't such that we could do this but now. People are recognizing that CTE classes benefit. All students. It's not for my students and your students or these students but not those students. It's there's advantages for all all students and that it is an opportunity. That we're providing that students can choice into and not something that we're pushing them into as a track and then just as far as a place to put that. We do have a policy 21 70 that is for career and technical education. I haven't looked at in great detail but perhaps that's something that we can take on and make sure that it is really clearly articulate that because I think that's a really important part of this work if we are moving forward in a way that that makes it more robust that we have to do it with strong values. Peters: Dir Patu. Patu: And I believe that when we're looking at CTE versus a college education we really want to make it very sure that kids know the difference between the two and they have an actual choice in how what CTE opportunities is going to be beneficial to them and what is a college education is going to mean what to them. Also when we had discussed this with some of the parents when we brought up CTE our parents were very excited about having actual apprenticeship programs for for their for their children. And and I guess one of the things that we actually are looking at is hopefully that we can have an actual partnership where kids can actually be able to get those training through out the time that they're in when they become seniors and then hopefully when they leave a company that they're getting that apprenticeship will be able to hire them on as regular employees. So the hope that is the future of what we're looking at in terms of what we're looking at providing apprenticeship programs for our students. And I do agree with Dir. Blanford that. It's the students choice that anything that we do in terms of providing opportunities that it would be the students to decide whether that's the direction they want to go or not. If there’s no further questions or comments. Ms. Shek the roll call please. Shek: Dr. Blanford. Blanford: Aye. Shek: Dir Burke?. Burke: Aye. Shek: Dr. Geary. Geary: Aye. Shek: Dr. Harris. Harris: Aye. Shek: Dir. Patu. Patu: Aye. Shek: Dr. Pinkham. Pinkham: Aye. Shek: Dr. Peters. Peters: Aye. Shek: This motion has passed unanimously. Peters: All right item four the 2017 18 legislative agenda. Harris: I move school board adopt the 2017 18 legislative agenda as attached to the board action report. Pinkham: I second the motion Peters: This item came to the executive committee on October 12th where we advanced it for approval. So are there any. There's been no changes since introduction from what I can see here. Are there any questions or comments about this document. Right seeing Dir Harris. Harris: On it. All right. Thank you to our legislative team. Thank you to those of you all that put a whole lot of miles on your car going down to Olympia and back and reaching out to folks and also thank you for giving our friends in the legislature technical support the fact that they come to us for answers as a source of great pride. Peters: Director Blanford, and Dir Geary? Blanford: My question is for Superintendent Nyland. Last year I fielded a request to have the district sign onto a letter. Advocating for legislative change. And you and I had that discussion. And your response to me responding to that request was no because we wanted to be laser focused on only the things that were in the legislative agenda and so I’m wondering in this one if we have similarly restricted direction that we're taking or if this one is more inclusive of the many opportunities to advocate for different issues that we as a district will be facing. Nyland: Probably defer to Stephen and Aaron. It does seem to be an ongoing issue for us and we have just as we do coming for the school board there are always many many many many things that we are interested in and concerned about. And I suppose there's a temptation to include many things in the document so that we can say sometimes like legislators do oh yeah we heard it and it's in there. The problem comes when we take a very valuable time with our delegation to push though one or two items that we really really really want them to move. So maybe there's a little bit of latitude but not really on the ground in Olympia to push 25 items because if we push, pardon the exaggeration but if we push too many items and we really push nothing. Bennet: I would just add. Erin Benet Executive director of government relations and stratigeic initiatives. Good evening. So I did want to I think that was a great explanation. There is some language in the board action report that I would point you to that does speak a little bit to your question and just within the background information it does say that although the legislative agenda is typically focused on a limited number of priorities the formal agenda does not limit district part on other topics. Looking at sort of the three areas that are in the agenda with the budget and then the capital and sort of eliminating the opportunity gaps say that the most flexibility lives in that third area simply because you don't know all the policy bills that may or may not come down. However I would say to Dr. Nyland’s point, you can't be spread so thin that they don't see the focus and so there are there were and I would imagine there likely will be again times where we have to say we are focused on the budget because we see the train coming. Blanford: So in response to those two comments and I appreciate them both having spent some time down in the legislature and knowing that if we spread ourselves too thin then our message is is greatly diffused. I would also argue on the other side of that coin that that sometimes the absence of Seattle Public Schools in a particular campaign for a specific thing is highly noted. Right. We're the largest school district. And we have a larger share of our contingent of legislators right. And so the example that I'm thinking of and I'm not thinking of the specific subject matter but more thinking about. We were asked to sign on to a letter that was advocating for something that was very much about closing opportunity gaps and in choosing not to do that. A couple of legislators came back to me later on and said I noted the fact that Seattle Public Schools wasn't listed amongst the you know 50 60 100 districts that. Signed on to that document. And so I don't know how to deal with the tension between spreading ourselves to stand being laser focused on the specific things that we want to. And I actually think it's it is something that we've entrusted you with making that decision so I'm not actually arguing against the decision that was made last year. But I do think that on a either on a case by case basis or with some attention to the cost benefit analysis of signing on or not signing on that we take opportunities to advance the causes that we believe in and particularly the the three goals that the district has set. Sometimes those don't come packaged neatly into the buckets that we have put them into but may advance our goals one way or the other. Nielsen: Well said and thank you for that thought in that comment Stephen Nielsen deputy superintendent. I would say that it fits within the context of the highest need compared to a nice to same kind of situation that is often presented to you. Where in that particular case there was a request to have more resources go to very specific and very good things. We recognize that that said. Our main issue as we said last year and so forth in front of you again here is to address underfunding of K-12. So it would literally have taken resources away required by the Constitution to be used in another arena. While those were very good ideas we didn't feel that it would be consistent with our overall policy to say we'd like that when we're going. We know for sure that would take away some of the opportunity to fully fund basic education. Peters: Director Harris and then Superintendant Nyland. Harris: I feel as though were talking behind the curtain and I would really appreciate some details here because I feel as though I may have missed a memo or two. What specific letter are we talking about? What specific bill are we talking about that we may have missed an opportunity or at least an opportunity for a thoughtful conversation? Nielsen: So I do not reply — recall — excuse me the name of the letter. It was not any… There was no bill. Frequently, interest groups will come together we do this and promote an idea together to say “Dear legislature would you please do something.” And I'm doing this a little bit foggy in my memory. It had to do with raising resources to help some schools. And we looked at it and said we liked these ideas. Again the problem is they do not necessarily align with fully funding basic education as the first thing necessary for the legislature to accomplish. There was no bill. Peters: Superintendant Nyland and then Dir.. Nyland: I can give a specific, I don't think it's one that we're talking about here. The I think it was either road map districts or Puget Sound ESD wanted us to sign on to a K20 bill saying we support — I could make a disparaging remark I wont- everything from early education, through college. Good thing to do. Colleagues we asked for their help, they stepped up and they helped us get various things we needed and hopefully some of those things were a two way street. I.E. the latitude on K-3 funding. So the least for one year there were fewer strings around that. As Stephen said in that case is college important. Sure. Is that a constitutional mandate. It is not. And that was our priority. And I got it. A lot of my colleagues could sign on because they're a small fish. And the legislature or others are going to take their signature with a grain of salt. In our case. Point well taken. Oh well we have a mandate now. I mean we we fight it all the time. I mean it's kind of like we do roads we do. Puget sound clean up we do environment. I'm sorry your honors of the Supreme Court, we don't have enough money. And we've seen it again right now as we speak. So anyway there may be other examples. If it was clearer to the EOG and in K-12 I would certainly be far more inclined to sign on and say yeah that that's something that we should. Geary: Dir Geary. That's exactly right. We did. We talked about it as the legislative delegate. We talked about it. I can't recall how far out that conversation went but it definitely it seemed at the time given our focus and where we were with McClary that it was important that we stayed focused advocacy of funding for K-12. And so perhaps should have brought out a larger swath in terms of that discussion so that would be me but I was included in the discussion as the legislative delegate and agreed with the district's perspective in terms of whether or not we should sign on to something that seemed inconsistent with our overall agenda. And I don't recall the time frame that we had to work in on that. Blanford: So this is all very helpful. I would suggest in the future because we have partners who are in who are down at the legislature who are advocating for our students in many cases as well as other students around the state that we be as transparent as possible about our decision making processes because the feedback that I got on that particular situation was that the answer was No and there was not very much explanation as to why the reason was no. There may be a very legitimate reason I think you guys have articulated why we would fall on the side of being focused on our three or three topics as opposed to other topics. But we could potentially burn bridges and upset folks that we need to have advocating for us that are advocating for our interests as well. If when we are not communicating sufficiently so whatever we can do to make sure that our rationale and our thinking processes are really clear to folks and broadcasting those out at the start so maybe some other organization will make a determination we're not going to reach out to Seattle Public Schools. We can handle this on our own or understanding why they that we might want to partner with them in our advocacy efforts. I think we can kill two birds with one stone and we need to do that as much as possible when we're done in the legislature. Geary: To the extent if I should continue to hold that position and or in the guidance of anybody who takes it I would be happy to share that with them. Peters: I’d like to ask dir. Blanford- when you discovered that the district is not signed onto this letter to you ask our, liaison about that, or Superintindent Nyland? Yeah, Superintendant at that time? ok. Ok maybe we just need some kind of format or mechanism where something like this comes up. It can be distributed to the whole board and it can be a conversation about some sort of advisory recommendation from the board on what to do. I will say I do feel there's been mission creep in terms of what we're all supposed to be responsible for. It goes from K-12 to then pre-K to 12 and then pre or pe. has been defined both as preschool and prenatal in some in some areas. And then now we're going up to 20. So I can understand the frustration of being asked to be spread so thin when we still aren't doing what we need to do for our primary mandate. So there's a couple of different things that we're touching on in this conversation. Harris: I appreciate the the conversation and the discussion and I think it goes a long way. I think one of the things that with the next legislative session certainly ramping up to the next biennial would be to figure out a mechanism so that our extraordinarily capable staff can keep us a little more tightly. In tune with what's going on because it's a shared responsibility not just the legislative liaison. We are devoting extraordinarily high talent to this because of its importance. And. You know I can disagree with organizations etc. but I never ever want to burn a bridge. And if we can spread the information on this topic and other topics in a better more rich way we all win. Peters: Dir. Blanford. Blanford: I don't want to beat a dead horse but I will say that I hope because I'm not going to be around. I hope that in the future we think less about this being an issue of mission creep. And think more inclusively about how we get to our goals. And one of our goals is to close our opportunity gaps and improve outcomes for all of our students. And one of the best ways to do that is to focus for example on early learning because we don't do a very good job of educating kids that arrive at the kindergarten door behind. So if kids arrive at the kindergarten door and are well trained they do better. And so we need to have a more organic view of how we get to our goals. And one of those is to support things like early learning support to support services that students need when they're not in our school buildings in order to accomplish our goals. And I think that more organic approach will allow us to partner with organizations or groups of individuals who are out there advocating on the behalf of Seattle Public Schools and it’s students. Speaker 30: All right if there are no further questions or comments Ms. Shek the roll call please. Shek: Dir. Pinkham. Pinkham: Aye. Shek: Dr. Blanford. Blanford: Aye. Shek: Dr. Burke. Burke: Aye. Shek: Dr. Geary. Geary: Aye Shek: Dr. Harris. Harris: Aye. Shek: Dr. Patu. Patu: Aye. Shek: Director Peters. Peters: Aye. Shek: This motion is passed unanimously. Peters: Item 5 kids in the middle grant from the Nesholm family foundation. Harris: I move the board authorize the superintendent to accept the kids in the Middle grant funds from Nesholm Family Foundation and the amount of five hundred ninety six thousand six hundred eight dollars. Pinkham: I second the motion. Peters: May we please here from the chair of the audit and Finance Committee. Harris: We moved this forward on October 9th for approval. Peters: Does not appear to have been any changes to this item since introduction. Does anybody have any questions or comments about this item. Seeing none is Ms. Shek the roll call please. Van Duzer: Director Blanford. Blanford: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Burke. Burke: Aye. Geary: Director Geary aye and with acknowledgement and thanks. Van Duzer: Director Harris. Harris: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Patu. Patu: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Pinkham. Pinkham: Aye. Van Duzer: Peters. Peters: Aye. Van Duzer: This motion was passed unanimously. Peters: Item 6 the 2018/19 implementation amendment to the 2013 — 20 growth boundaries plan for student assignment. Harris: I move the school board to amend the 2013 -20 growth boundaries plan for student assignment. So that change area 128 as defined in an attachment A is included in the Loyal Heights Elementary School attendance area beginning in the 2018/19 school year and direct the superintendent to take any appropriate actions to implement this decision. Pinkham: I second the motion. Peters: May we please hear from the chair of the operations committee. Speaker 47: This item was heard by the operations committee on October the 5th the move forward for approval. Peters: I notice this item has been added and changed since introduction. I wonder if staff members could address what the changes are since we last saw this. Thank you. Davies: Good evening my name is Ashley Davies director of enrollment planning. So we did add, based off the introduction of this bar, line item in the background that referenced the fact that we were recommending grandfathering for the previously approved changes. Again in that 2013 growth boundaries plan as well as indicated the cost for the maximum cost for transportation in the event that there was transportation provided for grandfathering. So again to ask one was to have a reference in here that talked and referenced the other changes that go along with the one we are proposing. And then the piece about transportation. Peters: The questions comments Dir. Burke? Burke: I want to thank you for adding this in but I just saw it now. So I apologize for not doing my read aheads deep enough and bring this up in my board comments is something that I'd like to see in the student assignment plan because it's already here but it's not here as an amendment. So my understanding is that it is here for information only and that this if it is approved with a vote would be approved as grandfathering without transportation as written. Davies: Correct. Peters: You seem to want to say anything further Dir Burke?. Burke: Comfortable letting this go through some comments before I make an amendment from the dais. Peters: OK director Harris. Harris: Understand the fiscal. Pressures we have on us. But has the choice not to provide transportation then run through the race and equity tool? Davies: So in terms of the instance of transportation being provided this was something that came up last year when we had the conversations around the Student Assignment Plan growth boundary changes and transportation. And so part of that discussion and again carries forward with this discussion is around families ability to take advantage of the opportunity to be grandfathered without Transportation will vary depending upon the families impacted. So one thing with you know Loyal Heights relative to some of the other Loyal Heights, Whittier and Adams relative to some of our other schools across the districts are Considered lower equity schools. We did determine based off of the conversation that we had last year around this that it would not be equitable to have grandfathered without transportation. So that previous to last year that wasn't something that was provided but that was part of the discussion that we had last year. Harris: So by adding grandfathering with out transportation. Are we setting precedent? And the rest of the changes we make in the future. And I appreciate that these may be better endowed schools as a group but I would submit to you that there are. Families and students in those schools that have high needs or are single parent families or two working families. And I am most concerned. About taking what looks like a fairly innocuous vote for one or two schools and setting a precedent so that we have to live with it because we won't be fair to other folks. Herndon: So just comment quickly so Flip Herndon and associate superintendent of operations and facilities. I don't think voting this is setting a new precedent. There has been there have been instances in the past of grandfathering with transportation. But for the most part grandfathering has not included transportation. So with or without transportation I don't think the board is setting any sort of new precedent in relation to this. It's just there is a fiscal impact to it. So then it would just be therefore being. Harris: Inconsistent and how we treat our schools? Herndon: Well yeah I mean there is some inconsistency in that but I think there are also times where. Just by definition equity is not always consistent either. So that's kind of the definition of equity is you decide when and where to apply that and the resources go accordingly. If you are looking for consistency and an equal application. Then I'm afraid we don't have that because we've done both. So in this case however the vote is not setting a precedent because we have done one or the other in the past. Pinkham: On section four background information with the addition that you add to it you reference change area 2 and 127. Speaker 66: Are we talking about those two areas? What happened to 128 or so. Davies: The bar itself is just for 128 because 128 wasn't initially included in the 2013 growth boundaries plan. 128 would have last year with a series of changes that weren't implemented moved. But because it didn't move there would be a misalignment with this year's changes and there would be a section you'd have the Whittier boundary, you'd have loyal heights and then there'd be this small section that was Whittier over the loyal Heights boundary. So that's why we are coming forward with the bar for just Section 128 which we said is less than 12 students who are in that area and again to align all of those changes from Whittier moving into loyal Heights altogether so there's not an island based off of the introduction that I did previously. And the fact that we are recommending grandfathering for those other areas that are changing with the opening of Loyal Heights we wanted to have it on record that we were recommending grandfathering in because there is no bar for that since there are no additional changes they're being made. We put them here in the background so it's there just to mention that reference the fact that that change is also coming in that we are recommending grandfathering. Pinkham: Okay thanks for that clarification. And then when you quote there transpiration not provided for grandfathered students [ indistinct] the max potential cost for grandfathered students, Now are you including alls change area 2 and 1:27 and not and 1:28. Davies: It is to 1:27 and 1:28 include in that transportation cost. Pinkham: So then if we asked well what is the transportation cost just for 1:28? Davies: It would probably be extremely small because it is less than 12 students in that particular area for just 128. But again since we are talking about grandfathering for all the students we included the cost for all the students. Pinkham: But then this amendment this motion is for area 128. And I think thats I guess my understanding that was information I was looking for. What's the cost for transporting students from 128 to whittier? Davies: So I don't have that section specifically. But again as we think about whether we would have transportation for those areas impacted we would want to be consistent in any of those changes either having transportation for all or not. So. Nyland: Probably reiterate some of the themes that we've talked about certainly I understand the heartstrings in terms of wanting to. Protect preserve opportunities for families and the challenges two jobs and transportation and getting to different schools at different times and I will speak up on behalf of our staff and that I've inherited in other districts kind of the aftermath of repeated decisions so. Every time an exception is made then it's harder to balance enrollment the next time. So if you if you need to move 10 to 20 kids to balance enrollment and you're going to grandfather the kids and you really haven't moved 10 to 20 kids and you're moving pick a number you're moving half of the kids and then. we grandfathered them so that they can continue for however many years depending on how old the kids are and if we do siblings we could be looking at multiple years. So we're extending our supply chain. So in the beginning you may it may make sense to rent a bus and you have 10 12 kids on a bus and it's efficient. And over time your area becomes smaller and you hope smaller and smaller and smaller because you needed to move the group in order to balance out enrollment. So we do have a challenge coming in that as enrollment continues to get tighter and good news is we added more seats this year than we have in the past but otherwise we just keep getting tighter and tighter and tighter and tighter. And we then make heartfelt decisions that take more slack out of the system and then we put pressure on staff to keep track. So it's not just keeping track of attendance areas anymore and it's keeping track of attendance areas except for that oh- yeah, and — oh well-. Yeah. And that one and then we give staff a bad time when well why can't you tell us how much we're going to cost to move this boundary or why did we miss the enrollment project. So I get it. It's it's challenging and we're talking about all of the important issues. I just wanted to kind of put them all together and say I appreciate the good job that staff does. And I know that we're going to make difficult decisions and at times we're going to bend those rules for good reasons. Burke: So I completely understand where our superintendent is going with this because when we look at the complexity of our system just based on the rules that we make in a student assignment plan. It's it's a challenge to take addresses and pathways and things like that and turn them into. Student assignments that are predictable reliable. And we make mistakes and that in every exception case we add is another thing that we have to maintain the accounting of. And as we extend it through grandfathering or even family grandfathering the tail on that work goes out longer and longer. So. I understand that but I still feel like I have to advocate for my community in this way the place where I'm coming at this is we have to maximize education and minimize disruption and do that within our our our fiduciary. Ideally with it within our means and I believe that minimizing disruption is so critically important. To that education that this is a place where I wanted to put forth an amendment. And I do have one question before doing so that might be for transportation. This area is normally three blocks north to south. Is it viable in our transportation service standards for students to walk into the region that is covered by. The. The. Existing Whittier bus structure and does that change the costing of this in any way? McEvoy: Peggy McEvoy assistant superintendent for operations we have. Depending on what area we are having students who walk two three blocks is not an unusual distance it just depends on whether there's a major arterial and if it's considered a safe walk zone for staff and we have had students who live outside of the area and want to go to a different school and we allow them to walk in to pick up a bus and we assign them a space available and then they jump on those buses to get to certain schools. Burke: So thank you. And just point of clarity for public and anyone on the board. It is more than three blocks. I was looking at a map with director Geary here. So to actually make that that walk has a few more than three blocks it looks like it could be on the order of five or six and could potentially cross an arterial. Speaker 21: And that would be something we need to look at but certainly we do have the 1 mile walk zone around all of our schools so three to four blocks is usually less than one mile so not. Extreme. Burke: Ok. So I would like to formally make a motion and let me just pull this up. That as part of this. Sorry wrong one. I would like to move that we amend. This board action to include transportation for the affected areas of grandfathering. Yeah maybe that's that's sufficient. Try to think this through. Make it up on the fly. Yeah. Move move that we I dunno?. Peggy do you have any language I could build into this here?. I'm struggling I think. McEvoy: Yes I exactly. Dr. Hern and I were agreeing it should be added to the transportation service standards would be what you would be recommending. So if you want to grandfather and then grandfather with transportation your amendment would be to add the transportation to the transportation service standards and then we'll bring that forward with the cost analysis and everything embedded that way. Burke: Perfect. So that essentially makes this a two step process. It's not a cost commitment here but it puts it into the policy structure and allows us to have a conversation around the that as part of transportation service standards correct. So we are not within that suggestion. We're not officially locking transportation. We're recommending it for inclusion? I’m not completely comfortable.. Harris: point of clarification. So are we talking then about unpacking the transportation standards at a later time and basically nullifying this if we don't like it? I don't understand the process here. Burke: My recollection is in the past when we did grandfathering we would include it in the the the bar that we wrote related to grandfathering and it would be grandfathered with transportation or without transportation. Harris: That's my recollection as well and if we do it in a two step process it seems a little backwards to me that that we would be needing to unpack it and it would nullify what we're just doing. Burke: Longest motion ever. Can I can I look to one more read from the team there. Herndon: I think for us what we're just talking about is our assumption and I think you're wanting to send a message to families to say we're including transportation and grandfather for us I believe. Well Miss McEvoy is saying is that that would be included in the transportation service standards with the price tag associated with that. I don't recall. And Ms. McEvoy has been here longer than I have. If the recommendation for paying for transportation and a grandfather in case has then later been unpacked out of the transportation service standards I think you're pretty much sending the message. We understand that. Which is why we gave you the total hopefully that the biggest cost associated with transportation. So you could make that informed choice later on. It would be. Yeah I think it would be definitely sending a mixed message to say we're approving it tonight. But then in transportation we're going to take it out later. Burke: OK. So so my understanding then is it goes into transportation services or is transportation service standards no matter what. So the motion is to adjust let me get the exact language I got I got it in my head now. I got it I got it I got it. Where is your motion. Purpose. Recommended motion. So the my amendment is in the recommended motion. There is I move the school board ammend in the 2013-20 growth boundaries plan for student assignment. So that change area 128 as defined in an amendment A included in the loyal hights Amendment. Elementary school attendance area beginning in the 2019 school year. And at that point it would it would include with transportation grand for grandfathering for this and neighboring region. Harris: Second the motion. Peters: And the question on that motion. Dir Harris? Harris: Where are we getting the potential $150,813.34 From? Burke: Wher the question addressed to anyone? Nielsen: Right. Stephen Nielsen Dept.. This would require us building that into the budget construction for next year. Harris: Would this be money? money? Berge: JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for finance. Not necessarily. I mean it's not necessarily going to be reimbursed money. So. I would just throw out there. What precedent we could be setting not just for this one off which we potentially could handle. It's what we're setting for an expectation for our families from here on out. That makes me worry. Peters: Excuse me. When you say not necessarily be reimbursed. I'm having a moment of deja vu. I recall having this exact exchange before and recalling that we were told at some point. In a work session that 90 percent of our transportation costs are reimbursed. So doesn't that mean it's fairly likely it would get reimbursed 90 percent likely. I think. Berge: What we have experienced is that there is a threshold. So there is a regression analysis that runs at the state level and it's your expected cost versus your actual costs and that's the lower of the two are actual costs had been lower so we've gotten 100 percent I think in more recent projections since we've moved to two tier transportation and some other things that we no longer feel that that is going to happen to us. I'd have to relook at the projections. I wasn't prepared to talk about this at this meeting. I have to say. So we'd have to relook at it because I think we could be in a place now where the expected cost coming out of the regression analysis which is the blackbox out of the transportation formula for the state could be the lower of the number and then it regardless of what our costs are we're going to get this lower amount. That's my worry. Peters: Okay. But at this point we don't know yet. Berge: We'll have to look at it again. Peters: So you're saying it's a difference of 90 percent of cost back and 100 percent? But. Berge: Potentially it is. Potentially I mean it's dependent upon a lot of other factors how many routes are running all those sorts of things so generally has run about 90 percent. But. With the change that we had going to two tier and the additional information that was fed to us out of the state we felt like our projections no longer were holding the same pattern that they had in the past. And so. We're more you know we're more worried about it. Pinkham: And with the director Bourke's amendment were you doing anything about siblings of grandfather's students? Burke: That that is not covered within the scope of this amendment. And I think what I'm hearing around the challenges of managing that I believe to do that we would have to build it into a more explicit and comprehensive student assignment plan and I think we have the support for right now. I did want to say for me as a director when I look at my values if we're going to offer grandfathering I believe we should offer transportation. And that was the decision that was made by this board last year. And that's the position that I'm taking this year as well. So I believe that that is a consistent position and I believe it is a statement of our values and I recognize that it costs more to do that. Nyland: Can you refresh my memory in terms of why we were shorted in transportation last year? Berge: Because I can't remember right now. that’s my honest answer I don't really remember. Nyland: So I think we're all tired and it's been a little long since we had this conversation but I don't think that is 90 percent of this route. It's kind of more like the straw that breaks the camel's back. So it's we keep adding to it and adding to it and adding to it. And then they run it through the regression analysis and they say tilt and then they don't fund it. So in essence it's the last. Additions that we made that caused the system to go tilt. Speaker 50: So and we can't answer your question. How far can we push before they tell us we've pushed tilt? I don't know that. Berge: One of the things about the transportation formula that's different than other parts of the formula, many of them use a one year look back through the years last years data and we know what that data is and we get earlier projections. But the transportation formula is using current year data. And so though will report out something in February or March and then they update that Year's Formula. What we're going to receive as far as revenue on this. So it's unsteady, That's why in the McCleary bill they talked about relooking at the formula, and trying to do some different things. Every district is struggling with the same thing about projection. Blanford: In director Burkes remarks about his service with me. He said something about me being fiscally responsible and probably no one in the history of this planet has ever known me to be fiscally responsible. But. But I take the compliment. So I'm going to put on my fiscally responsible hat and talk a little bit about what. What I've heard so far about our values and making this decision. One of our fundamental values I believe we talk about it it's it's the superintendents. Amongst the goals that have been set is around equity is around closing our opportunity gaps and I believe that when we make exception after exception after exception we actually are hurting our ability to do that thing that we say we're going to do which is to close our gaps. Because each time we dip into our general fund that's less money available for the types of work that we believe are going to close gaps. And so if we don't talk about that enough we hear from our communities who make passionate plea for one exception here are an exception. All of them costing us money. And then we listen to those folks. We feel their pain and their passion and we agree to whatever whatever their request and. No one is saying on a daily basis no one's coming in here and yelling about we need to close these gaps. And so there is less money available and closing gaps cost money it's not something that is free because professional development cost staff time it costs a number of other initiatives that are in place. So though I feel strongly that we have a responsibility to the families and I think we need a transportation plan or an assignment plan that actually solves all of these problems and doesn't build so many exceptions that it doesn't make sense after a while. And I think we're headed in that direction. I also believe that we need to truly start to look at these decisions through a lens of equity which says that when we make exception after exception we can actually do the things that we say we are all about. And so for that reason. With all due respect I intend to vote against the amendment. Peters: ok and so my understanding is that in 2009 the student assignment plan did provide transportation for grandfathered students. So we do have a precedent with that. But I know what's changed in terms of heartfelt and passionate and emotion and all those ideas that have been put forth. I really don't want to belittle the concerns of families. Families are simply saying give us stability give us predictability don't divide our families don't divide our children don't send us to multiple schools it's really hard to do. And in the 12 or 13 years since I've been involved with this district I've seen a district do it time and again. I know families whose kids have been moved from schools like six times six times. Right. And I remember back during the closures of 2009 there were students who were removed from well MLK Elementary to TT minor to Lowell and then they went somewhere else after that. And I remember transportation wasn't necessarily provided for these students. And as a result some of these students couldn't go to Lowell. And these were low income children of color. Right. So we have a mixed history in terms of how we treat our students. And I think we have to decide what our values are. And yes I know there's a cost there's always a cost and there's always an opportunity cost if we try everything we do to the opportunity gap. Then what does that mean. Does that mean we just don't do anything at all. That's not directly related to the opportunity gap. I mean all of this can be potentially connected to it if you want you know I mean if we're talking about stability for all of our students predictability for all of our students and this is not a race and gender or socioeconomic decision this is about our basic values to our families. So. You know if we're not talking about a great deal of money and if we do have a history of doing this you know I don't see the huge harm in doing this. And I think we just have to remember what our values are and vote accordingly and try and do as much as we can throughout the district to offer consistency and stability to our students. But we just have a history as a district of just moving kids around moving families around an awful lot. And it really I understand it's an aspect it's a result of us being a city that is growing. But back in 2009 when the city wasn't growing it was still doing that. So I think some of us come from that background and it's very real and it's not it's not just it's not an emotional thing it's it's a reality for families it's very hard for them to predict what's going to happen. And they have to make all kinds of accommodations and we can wash our hands of it what we're doing is it we're pushing it on to our families. These decisions we make. So I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Herndon: Just one point of clarity clarity as far as transportation goes. This is a conversation I was having with Assistant Superintendent McEvoy as well when grandfathering with transportation has happened in the past. There's two ways that it happened. One is that the board votes on it annually knowing that there is a cost annually that comes up in which case you have to approve it every time and the Transportation Standards each year. The other is to basically put a timeline that says the younger student is will be in first grade next year. And by that time they're in fifth grade that's five years. Transportation for this change area sunsets in five years because in that way you don't have to approve of it every year and the cost may vary. That would be updated in the transportation service plan. But the fact of whether or not you want to provide it or not wouldn't we'd already have that baked in. So I just want to make sure there is some clarity on how you want to address that because one is we're going to provide it for the time that is all the way there or you're going to annually. Update that every year. Yes you've provided grandfathering but trenched the transportation piece is there are a couple of examples where every year I can think of former director Martin Morris who would annually say and we need to make sure we include the funding for transportation for grandfathering for these students who moved from this area to this area. So I just want to make sure we're clear as a staff and then it's memorialized in something so that we just we aren't missing anything and we can account for that. Burke: The way I believe I structured that amendment was just linking it to the grandfathering So if there is grandfathering there's transportation. And that's sort of the values that I've internalized and I'm trying to share and sort of test the water with it. That's an element of if we commit to. One aspect it's connected at the hip to transportation during you know over its whatever life the the grandfathering applies to the transportation follows. Peters: If there are no further questions or comments about the amendment. And we should first vote on the amendment which is to provide transportation for the students who are grandfathered in the bar in front of us with the details to be determined once we work on the transportation standards. Is that correct? No? Burke: Grandfathering=transportation. Peters: Well wait a second so you're saying. Burke: The the the language of the amendment was for students that are grandfathered, they are provided transportation. Peters: Right. But in terms of. Burke: There's no connection to the student assignment plan that's a separate point. Peters: The Transportation Standards are the details will be. Burke: Yeah the transportation service standards is a separate conversation that staff will do and they will bring to us and if there's something there to unpack that would be part of that conversation. But we don't necessarily have to create that linkage because it automatically happen. OK so you're just saying if we grandfather students we pay for the transportation or at least in this instance? Are you making a broader statement and that just in this instance? The conversation is around this instance. Peters: OK. All right. Dir Geary?. Geary: I am so thankful that we were able to find the two point three million dollars necessary to move our busing from three tiers to two tiers. But we still don't know how much of that work and get back. And we know around transportation we are being asked to somehow throw our weight behind potential strike issues and we don't know. Really the cost of that. And I'm assuming that we are opening schools that we believe in and we're giving people an opportunity to go to schools that are going to provide a solid preparatory education for their children to move on. That is our goal. And we are allowing them within our rules to choose to send their kids to a new school on a bus. And then we're also going and we're paying for that. And then we're allowing a lot of choice and at any point those people who are going to choose to grandfather could choose into an option or choose into an HCC pathway if they qualify. And then we hear about all these people who say a bus shows up with one student in it who's paying for that? Because we have no guarantee that any of these people will grandfather or that the bus route that we set up for these working families who have to get before school care or are going to be using this bus anyway. So. I am a little worried that in all of these machinations and trying to make sure that everybody's situation is covered while trying to do a macro analysis of providing good schools for our kids in accordance with the rules the big rules that we've applied that we're not being consistent and we're not being fiscally responsible. And I don't have enough information to know if potentially there could be one bus that could be extended or in an existing route that could be extended up and grab these kids. And so that it would be a nominal increase which would be great or if we're sending one specifically up to gather five kids for five years to show up and then we get phone calls about what we're paying for. And does that look fiscally responsible to anybody when? We have all these buses running all over with very few kids in them so. While I truly, I sympathize with the desire to do this. I don't know if I can support it because there's just too much about it that doesn't make sense. And when I take all those factors into consideration. And still not understanding if. They moving to the two tier system it has been something we can afford to do in the long term. Harris: Can I get some assistance from Assistant Superintendent? I very much appreciate that sort of cascading parade of horribles that was just brought up. However don't we in fact already have scenarios where that happens? And don't we try to — re-engineer those bus routes to make them more efficacious? Yes and don't we do that pretty frequently? McEvoy: We route and reroute continuously over the summer to try and get to maximum efficiency. I often hear that people will see there's one student on a bus and that seems inefficient. Usually when we've gotten complaints like that actually every time I've gotten a complaint like that we've gone back to analyze that it is actually not bringing kids to school. It's when they go between schools and they have programmatic changes that are going on so we try and route as efficiently as we can. And I know that the estimate for the two buses was really a scenario based on not knowing how efficient we could get with this. We just wanted to be very transparent that it could cost as much as this. We will try always to be as efficient as we can be. Harris: And you do that on a regular and continuing basis correct? McEvoy: Yes. Pinkham: Do we know how many buses currently transports students to Whittier? McEvoy: I don't have that but I can provide that for you. Pinkham: Yeah and they're just looking at the map like the major artery way may be that the Holeman road and if we got a bus already coming down Holden road hey take a left right there you can pick up those students an area 127 on your way to the area where you're picking up students to go to Whittier anyway and that's the things that you know and kind of Dir Geary’s point that we don't know what the impact is going to be on this. If we include this so maybe we should add a little fiscally responsible transportation provided or help also with Dir. Blanfords. Geary: One of the things that people have talked about and I'm unclear as to how often and how functional it is to do this- when we use one bus for multiple schools. We in order to be efficient because you're grabbing multiple within one geographic zone you're serving several schools and providing transportation. McEvoy: And we have not traditionally done that. There are few schools that we have exceptions to. Most of the time when we have done that in the past we have gotten requests from schools and principals that we not do that because it's very hard to manage some of the behavioral issues that go on sometimes between the different schools and students and so traditionally we don't do that and we try and route full routes for every particular school. Peters: Any more questions or comments. Okay. And then we have a motion and amendment on the floor and I guess we are now ready for a vote. Mr. Van Duzer the roll call please. Van Duzer: Director Burke. Burke: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Geary. Geary: No. Van Duzer: Director Harris. Harris: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Patu. Patu: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Pinkham. Speaker 60: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Blanford. Blanford: No. Van Duzer: Director Peters. Peters: Aye. Van Duzer: This motion has passed by a vote of 5 to 2. Peters: OK and that brings us now back to the original item. We there's no further conversation. I think let us now go to the roll call for the vote on this motion as amended. Van Duzer: Director Geary. Geary: Aye. Nielsen: Director Harris. Harris: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Patu. Patu: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Pinkham. Pinkham: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Blanford. Blanford: No. Van Duzer: Director Burke. Burke: Aye. Van Duzer: Director Peters. Peters: Aye. Van Duzer: This motion has passed as amended by a vote of six to one. Peters: All right. So that concludes our action items for the evening. We now move on to the introduction items. The first one is amending policy number 2415 high school graduation requirements. Let's see that the next two items went to our curriculum instruction Committee. Burke: Both of these next two items went to the curriculum instruction Committee on October 11th and we're both moved forward for consideration. Perkins: Good evening. My name is Caleb Perkins director of college and career readiness, I'm here with Chris McBride academic intervention specialist from Garfield High School. Very honored to have the opportunity to introduce these two board action reports to briefly summarize what was shared at the October 11th board work session so that we to refresh your memory on those discussions. This board action report for 24:15 and the one following 24:20 our efforts to update policy to connect to our secondary revision to update policies that have needed to be connected to our efforts to move students to college and career readiness. 24:15 relates to the 2.00 GPA requirement. We believe that removing this requirement would be helpful for a number of reasons. To summarize the very powerful testimony that principal Wynkoop from Ballard High School and Mr. McBride shared at the work session this policy while we embrace the importance of Rigor, we believe is unnecessary and unhelpful at this point. Unnecessary, given the fact that there are many other requirements that students need to meet to reach a higher level of rigor including state state testing in terms of standards in terms of course audits and for Advanced Placement classes and at the same time it's unhelpful when we heard the testimony that just again to refresh my memory of the many students that go through the angst anxiety of trying to having to go through the waiver process and the inconsistency that it's a struggle to apply this consistently and as a result we have students for example who do much better in their later grades than in their earlier years in high school and have to operate under this anxiety of potentially not graduating because of the 2.0 GPA requirement. So for all those reasons we are asking for the removal of this portion of 24:15 and we appreciate the opportunity to share this tonight and to get your response to your feedback. Between now and the action on November 15th. Peters: Any questions or comments Dir Pinkham. Pinkham: Thank you for bringing this forward and or others to consider and I want to just address that. That this not be taken as we're lowering the standards for to try to reach equity and equality. It's more that forgiving if our grades have a passing grade of certain level then that should be the passing grade. We shouldn't then say oh 2.0 if you want to get a diploma though for passing students off of one class to the next with but sub 2.0 grade. That's something we should if we're not going to get a diploma after we pass a them off, for that then we're not doing them justice. So. I do support this that we who are again giving them passing grades that are sub 2.0 they should still be able to get a diploma even though sub 2.00. But this is not a means to lower the bar or something and are just under served challenge students. Perkins: Absolutely. Burke: Another point of clarification along this not necessarily lowering the bar but recognizing that this is a little bit of a loopy bar sort of a fuzzy bar in that it doesn't truly represent a comprehensive picture of the student because of the way the GPA is calculated. And so. The. Policy language that we're talking about. That we're we're talking about removing is a little bit of of an obscure process anyways. That. Doesn't necessarily add benefit to that student work. And maybe if I could turn that into a question since we've got we've got the subject matter experts here and I'm super grateful that they were willing to stay and listen to us yammer on a little bit. I'd love to hear what this particular requirement does or doesn't motivate our education or our educators to do is support those students. And if this weren’t here what is the motivation to help those students that are struggling. Perkins: So I'll start and if Mr. McBride would come and give the school based perspective I think that everyone find valuable. But to paraphrase what Principal Wynkoop from Ballard High shared there are many pieces in place now since this 2.0 GPA pieces first put it in place. We have many more rigorous bars rigorous standards to meet to ensure students are clearing a level that makes sure that we're ready for college and career readiness. And that was the point he emphasized in his many many years in Seattle Public Schools. This may have been useful once upon a time but since the advent of the common core standards the new state testing. The other things like Advanced Placement course audits. This is no longer as you say this is no longer a meaningful bar especially compared to those others. And I know Mr. McBride also has specific cases to speak to. McBride: Good evening. Chris McBride academic dean at Garfield High School. Thank you for the opportunity to listen to this again. And have us back. one of the things that you asked about just a few minutes ago was what does this. Do or what doesn't it do as far as educators and how it impacts what they do in their classroom or for the students. I can think of several things. But one of the things that stands out to me is you know imagine we're a week before graduation. Grades are getting ready to come out and there's a kid who's been on the cusp really been improving pushing to get you know that core GPA up to 2.0 and he's earning a C minus and a really hard physics class and that's great. C-minus. That's not terrible for a kid who's been struggling to really work and to improve and challenging himself taking. A rigorous academic class. But a C minus is only a 1.7 or eleven point. As you know the eleven point grading scale that's part of board policy. So that doesn't help him. And what I've seen happen is that student in conjunction with a very caring teacher decided not to take the final exam. Therefore earning zero there for bringing his grade down to an E which will not impact. His GPA in this policy. OK because of the ease not being counted. And so what we're talking about is. For lack of a better phrase playing playing a little bit of a game, working the system, and we don't want to do that. What we want to do is reward this kid for all of his hard work given the C minus that he earned and the credit that he earned after a semester's worth of work. So that's one example that I think is pretty glaring and that we see frequently at the end of every school year. You're welcome. Peters: Caleb can you please remind us what other districts are doing with regard to that. Didn't you say that some neighboring districts also discontinued having a GPA requirement for graduation. Perkins: Correct it's in my research. I could only find one other district. This is also referenced in the 24 credit taskforce there's only one other district in the state that has this similar GPA requirement for graduation it's Bellevue. Peters: I know this has been brought to the board before. I don't know if it's been brought to the board for a vote but I know it's been brought up before just in the four years I've been here I think three times. And then before I was on the board I remember previous directors discussing it and the concern was always what message are we sending in terms of our standards. And so I mean I think the case it needs to be made here is that this alone does not really show the measure of our student. They can be prepared for the world in other ways. Can you speak a little bit about how these other things we use you mentioned you mentioned these other tests. Are you saying that a student could pass every single required test. They need to graduate they get to have everything else completed every project completed. But just because they don't have a 2.0 grade point average they would not be able to graduate? Perkins: That is correct. They would need to apply for a waiver. And in some cases they would not be granted a waiver so that's that is correct. I don't know if there's is. And there are certainly cases each year where where that happens. Peters: So these students them will have passed the smarter balance test. They would have passed whatever other tests required of them. But just this is the only thing that's holding them back. Perkins: Correct. And again many students didn't apply for a waiver. And then many are granted but some are not. And so again it is one of those situations where one case is too many of a requirement that we don't think is meaningful anymore preventing students from getting to the next phase of their educational careers. Harris: Can you speak a little bit about the waiver process and is that high school or where does that go. What's the process? Perkins: It is by school meaning that the principal in fact reviews each case and it's typically the counselor or the academic intervention specialist I believe who who goes through and prepares the case which is another aspect of this that seems a little outdated given the relatively low value of this that it's not a large number of hours to engage in this review process and the waiver process but it is ultimately the individual principal's decision. The way it's currently set up. Harris: So in one school. Student A could get the waiver and in the next school. Student B with the same set of circumstances would not get the waiver? Perkins: That is yes. That and that happens. Peters: Any other questions or comments about this item?. Dir Blanford. Blanford: I would. Given the lateness of the hour it's probably not the appropriate time to have this conversation but when I left from the conversation last time when we were talking about this I thought that we needed to. Have a little bit of dialogue about the grades and about the subjectivity of grades and how. I know because my wife was a part of that when she was employed by the district. Teachers have been working on standards based grading. So the some of the subjectivity has been taken out of the grading process and it be great if we could have a little bit of information about that as well because I think it would be easier or easy for the casual listener to think well this you know there's a lot of subjectivity in the grades that are assigned to students. And I know that we've been working on trying to make grades based on performance as opposed to other factors that may or may not be appropriate. So if if there is a paragraph or two that you can share when we bring this to action that would be helpful. Thank you. Perkins: Absolutely. I think that connects to the next board action report as well. Peters: There's no further questions or comments at this time. Thank you. We'll see you in two weeks. Perkins: You mean short of that but. Peters: Maybe even sooner. OK. We'll see you in a minute. OK. Item two amending policy number 24:20 high school grade and credit marking this also went to C & I need to really speak to that same. Caleb, you’re back. Hello. Perkins: Nice to see you. So this is the second policy we discussed at the board work session on October 11th this is asking to remove the 150 hour per credit once again because of the detail analysis the 24 credit tests first it among a number of other groups and educators that revealed by removing this we provide 2 potential helpful opportunities to improve pedagogy to improve teaching and learning at our high schools. One it gives schools more flexibility to offer more flexibility design and creatively designed approaches to getting credit. Things like internships things like work based apprenticeships and many of the things that were discussed earlier are related to the CTE resolution on the on the practical perspective what I don't want to lose sight of this is also very connected to the need to expand credit earning opportunities at nearly all of our high schools to address the 24 credit requirement. As I've had detail conversations with many of you in the recent days and and others over the weeks. We need to make sure that students have more than 24 credit earning opportunities over their four years in high school and we are planning to make a move for next year on how to do that. That is requires that we have flexibility in the number of hours per credit. This does not change the fact that we want to make sure that these credits are have rigor connected to them and there's a high bar too in order to earn these credits. And after reviewing what a number of other districts have done as well as consultation with you all there has been in addition since the original bar. So just to read it very quickly that director Geary in particular said we should we should define a credit in this. Connected to what Director Blanford was requesting as well as Director Peters. If we're going to remove the 150 hour per credit what are we replacing it with? And just to read briefly that the proposal students will be awarded high school academic credit upon successful completion of a specific unit of study which means the following earning a passing grade according to districts relevant grading policies or counseling provision, demonstrate and or demonstrating proficiency mastery of content standards and or successfully completing an established number of hours as deemed appropriate by the district for particular courses. So we believe that provides enough clarity is following the model of many many many other districts who have taken the states opportunity of removing counting hours as the way to determine whether students are meeting particular proficiency and instead moving to real rigor. Speaker 63: And we appreciate your consideration of this especially as we think about planning for next year's high school schedule. Peters: Questions comments Dir Burke? Burke: Thank you very much. One request following up from the discussion we had in the definition of a credit the you know this is is focused on the academic credit we have other policies relating to competency based credits and work based. So my request would be if we could add a bullet D that says something like additional credit learning opportunities through work based learning and competency based credits are described in procedures blah blah blah blah or some way to cross-reference that just indicate that those do exist but do not detail even in this policy. Excellent yeah. Peters: To clarify. So with with that description under the credits where you have A B and C having a minimum number of hours required for a course is just one option but it's not required. Perkins: Correct. So it gives us the power to the board and the district to deem certain experiences worthy of defining hours. So for example there are some districts that have said worksite experiences should actually have more hours because of the importance of the contact hours. And so again that would be something that we would have the flexibility to determine based on the experience. Peters: Well the concern I have is that it will be the poor that would be deciding the individual principals because that appears to be the trend. So what kind of controls do we have in place to make sure that we don't have some schools where you have to do X number of hours and you know demonstrate mastery at another school where you just simply have to demonstrate mastery by taking one test and you're done. I mean how are we going to have any kind of standards. And I don't mean Common Core. I mean you know a consistency of quality and expectation from school to school because we don't have that right now. Perkins: I certainly appreciate the thought of how to get more consistency across high school I think that's part of the spirit of the secondary revisioning work. And there are many times that we check in with high schools and what they're doing in terms of reviewing their master schedule in terms of looking at the courses that they're. There's a there's a course catalog that goes through my office in terms of any new course reviews are centrally reviewed. So there are a number of checks. I think maybe to your point there's some of them could be made stronger but they exist the opportunities exist to provide the oversight and to ensure a basic level of consistency and that would only be enhanced by the change in this policy Peters: will there be any kind of review done in six months a year after if we go ahead and do this to see check in with the schools and see what each school is doing and if you find huge disparity between one or the other than we have the same problem we've have right now with the waivers with the previous issue whereas it takes a lot less to graduate from one school than another. So will there be anything that your department is going to do to review how each school is interpreting these guidelines? Perkins: A good question and one that that requires I think or merits a detailed response I'll just say initially you know in terms especially as we transition to the new high school schedule there are a lot of checks along the way in terms of how folks are making the transition to add more credit learning opportunities that has to be done in a rigorous way that has to be done in a thoughtful way and that will involve my office and others spending more time reviewing what high schools are doing Burke: I want to confirm what I thought I heard that as that high schools that are offering particular courses or new courses have to route them through. Perkins: Correct. Burke: Central Office for review. So is that the case where we can. Our expectation as a governance body is we could expect that any course that's offered in a high school either fits the standard model or has been vetted by central office and approved for them to offer something in their master schedule. It's they've checked the boxes for. Whatever the. You know our team thinks is meeting these requirements of policy? Perkins: The short answer is yes particularly going forward but it ought to be transparent. There are certainly courses that are in the course catalog that merit more rigorous reviews. Harris: Thank you. Would you include the new advisory. Period on that. That doesn't seem to be consistent. Between any of our high schools. Speaker 88: Appreciate the comment. One of the things that we're doing with the SEA as close partners is figuring out the level of rigor and guidance related to implementing advisory I think that is something that that that we're trying to find the right balance between central guidance and local innovation and that's. Harris: But are you suggesting that. Are you suggesting that SEA is going to determine the content of our advisory Periods in our high schools? Perkins: I appreciate the question. No that that's not what I'm suggesting. Harris: Please help me with your nuance then please because I truly am confused. Perkins: OK. The point is that the rollout of advisory it's obviously a very important initiative the support of social emotional learning and the personalization of what of the supports that we provide students at the high school level particularly on future planning. So the SEA is a partner in that in helping us think about how to support that. But in terms of the the theme of what we're discussing now in terms of how that earns a credit I agree with you that there should be some basic level of consistency and to director Burke’s earlier point that you go through a common review process that would still go through the central office. Harris: When are we going to have a consistent advisory. Committee and a curriculum and a framework and all the other. Structures scaffolding? What what when is that wenzi eat here. Because we're in November now. Perkins: Well I can say we share the goal of wanting to get there and we're trying to do that in a thoughtful collaborative way. And I'd be happy to get you more specific timeline. I probably shouldn't won't be able to do that at this moment right now. Burke: Thank you. Can can I just confirm since since advisory is brought up is that an example of bullet C successfully completing an established number of hours of a planned alternative instructional activity determined by the district so we could say if it's a 15 minute advisory it's X credits if it's a 30 minute advisory it's X credits so that's where. Hours correspond so a certain number of credits is that an example of that just to make it concrete in my brain? Perkins: Yes that is an example. And again there should be consistency across ultimate consistency across the district in terms of how that is. Burke: Perfect I think I just needed that concrete example to put it to something. Harris: Any other comments questions or concerns from my colleagues? director Pinkham. Pinkham: Director Burke brought up like a bullet D about other new other ways to. Get credit again. Can you clarify that a bit for me there. Burke: The we have two other probably more than two but I know of two other policies one for work based learning where hours in an approved work place under educational supervision. You can get academic credit for there are certain rules around it. And then also competency based credit which I think we're primarily focused on with world languages where you can get credit based on proficiency test and both of those can get credit but weren't explicitly stated here are covered in other policies and I didn't want to lose them if somebody just looked at this they might think wait what about these other things. So it's really just a request to cross-reference those other policy documents. Pinkham: You know because that's kind of what I'd be looking at and considering as this conversation has come up with the Gail Moore as I talk to her about you know we have this since time immemorial that we have to include But we don't have any assessment for it to say OK let's test our kids. How are you doing with since time imm.. no. We just kinda offered them of course we don't have any way to assess them to see. Hey are you proficient in this or. Just a question that I had in my mind but there's credits that we’re askin’ em to take in coursework that we’re askin em to to do but we don't have assessment for everything other than what we see here. Math science language arts. But now we can also with Part D include other. Skills and knowledge. Peters: Greg if there are no further questions or comments then I guess we'll move on to the next item. Item 3 resolution 17 18 dash 4 certification of excess levies and calculation of general fund Levy rollback for 2018. May we please hear from the chair of the audit and finance committee. Harris: Went through October 9th for approval we got no choice in it, it's a question of legal arithmetic. Yes. Sebring: Linda Sebring budget director. Peters: Is there anything more to understand about this? Sebring: On the request of the board members at audit and finance. We added some additional documentation to the original bar that we brought forward which is in your packet there is a slide that is a brief explanation for those who have not encountered what is Why is the board recertifying levees that were voted on a couple of years ago and so it goes to the bullet points of there's two levies that we have the voters vote on. One is the maintenance and operations levy. The other is our capital levy. So state law as director Harris said requires us to recertify in the fall before the county sets the tax rates for all of the tax payers. So we are doing two things at this time. We are. Doing what's called a rollback on the maintenance and operations Levy. So if you look at the slide that had a bunch of you know bar charts in it that shows you what the amounts were that the board approved and that the voters approved for our levies,. And it also shows the amount that we are unable to collect. Sorry we're unable to show it on the screen but what is happening for this is you are approving the 2018 tax collection amounts. The maintenance and operations Levy when we originally ran it by the voters was for $250 million. Three hundred thousand dollars. At this point, it is restricted collections because there's two factors that determine what the actual taxable amount is going to be. One is what the voters approve. And the second one is a calculation from the state and the calculation from the state came in less than what the voters approved at 233 million. Three hundred sixty five thousand nine hundred sixty one dollars. So what we're asking the board to do is through a resolution is to roll back the collection amount to the lower amount which is the amount the state has authorized. You will also see on the resolution the amount for the Capitol property tax levy. There is no change to that dollar amount. Peters: Any questions or comments. In terms of chronology rolling back does that simply mean not collecting the maximum amount that we had originally. Intended. Sebring: That is correct. Nyland: [indistinct, off mike] Peters: No I was saying if the original amount that was approved was 250 but we're only able to collect 233. It's not we're not giving anything back. We just haven’t collected it. And so we have to have a different celing right now. Speaker 89: Correct. And when we built the 17/18 budget and building the 18/19 budget we take into consideration new information when we put this levy to the voters, What was it three years ago now? Almost three years ago, we had certain assumptions we thought McCleary would be fully funded. We had seen maybe charter schools would be using part of our levies. So we had built some capacity into the levy. Some of those things did not come into being so we will not be collecting that full amount that the voters had authorized. Blanford: We had a rich discussion of that very issue in the audit and finance committee and we were clearly informed that there would be no refunds that were going that this is just a it's not an accounting change. But it is a recognition that we are authorized to receive less money than we have received. And then we said we were going to receive. And as a result we are just signing a resolution rolling back the amount that we originally thought we were going to get to a smaller amount. Is that correct. That is correct. It wasn't very great. It wasn't very elegant the way I stated it. You did a better job. Speaker 89: You are recertifying the levy and this the amount that King County will take and it will they will look at the assessed value in the county and they will divide it up across the taxpayers. So it will change the mil rate which is the dollars per thousand that taxpayers pay. Because housing prices have gone up so the assessed value is higher than we thought it was as well. Burke: Question around just messaging and this is more of a question for the district historians and maybe for Flip. We're essentially collecting less money than our voters are committed to pay us. And so as we go out to future levies is that one of our talking points that we're actually collecting less money than we originally proposed. Even though it's not through any conversation of our own. Harris: Go ahead [indistinct]. Burke: No harm in asking. [Nyland talking off microphone]. Berge: So assistant superintendent. JoLynn Berge finance. The message is going to be vastly different because the legislative change. So what we said in the past will be not what we're saying in the future because we're going to have to describe a completely different set of policy that's now flowing out. So when we come to the 2019. Levy renewal we'll have to provide different information. Harris: You'll pay more you'll get less. I hope. Berge: That could be. So I think there's still a lot of road. There's still a lot of runway between now and and then. Peters: Are there any further questions or comments on this item. K that we now go onto the next item which is item number 4 the superintendent's employment agreement employment agreement. Cost of Living Adjustment COLA. This one that see did not go to committee. Whoops went the wrong direction. Here we go. So let me read a little bit about this. So. We the board is tasked with annually evaluating the superintendent. And this past year we decided to reset when we do that because for various reasons. Valuating superintendent November-December didn't make as much sense as evaluating the superintendent at the end of the school year in June so as what we did and under the contract we are obligated to consider any changes to the superintendent's contract by the first legislative meeting in December. And we took into consideration the changes the salary like a raise and also cost of living adjustment. And under the current circumstances where we've all been doing a lot of belt tightening with the budget was mutually decided that a raise would not be appropriate at this time for the superintendent. However our cost of living adjustment is something that is also offered to other employees throughout the district. And so the board is putting forth a proposal that the superintendent be awarded a cost of living adjustment to his current salary. And that is what we have before us here. Does anybody have any comments or questions. Superintendent? all right. Nielsen: Well then I'll move on to the next item. Item 5 BTA IV award construction contract K 5 0 7 8 bid number B 0 8 7 0 5 to FORMA construction company for the Magnolia elementary school renovation an addition project. Would you please hear from the chair of the operations committee. Blanford: My sheet says that this was heard on May 18th and move forward for consideration. seeing noddings so that must be true correct. I'm not remembering that far back so saw go ahead introduce this. Best: We are asking that you consider awarding a construction contract. K 5 0 8 bit number 0 8 7 0 5 to form a construction for Menolly elementary school addition and renovation project. The reason director when offered we brought this before the operations committee back in May. Prior to building this project the BTA IV project we bid the project and the project bid substantially over budget. It it's in the background information project bid. Well if bid four million nine hundred thirty nine thousand eighty dollars over budget and would have necessitated a program contingency transfer of five million seven hundred nine thousand eight hundred twenty three dollars. And the capital projects office we reached out to numerous contractors that we worked with including Lydig construction, cornerstone general construction, and also including Forma. All of them advise us that if we were to rebuild this project we would probably receive a more favorable bid in the fall of 2017. They just noted the tremendous amount of work that was building at that moment in time and the lack of capacity in the construction industry to implement all of the work that was building and so there were very high prices being bid on projects. We did work with our architects Mallam architects to redesign the project to identify some cost saving measures. I want to make that comment as well. And the project rebid and including the selection of alternates one B which is the temperature control system that will be placing in the building alternate 2, which is the three classroom addition and the library above an alternate 3 which is linoleum flooring. The project contract amount will be twenty six thousand two hundred seventeen thousand five hundred dollars plus Washington state sales tax. At this time that project would require a transfer of five million dollars from the. B from the BTA IV program contingency. Currently remaining in the BTA IV program contingency. And I will add this since in a revised bar when we go for approval is 12 million four hundred eighty seven thousand four hundred ninety nine dollars. So we do have money in the BTA for program contingency to implement this work. Part two: we do also have two large projects left to bid. We have the additions to Ingram high school which at this time work is a GCCM project and working with our GCCM contractor we believe thats within budget and we are in the process that at this time in the construction document phase weve gone through schematic design weve gone through design development. So we are nearing bidding this project but that project won't build until. The early late winter early spring of 2018. And then also we have Webster. Building which we are. Speaker 92: Also bidding in a time frame of fall of 2018 for construction to begin. Winter of 2018 or early. You know just after the New Year that project we do anticipate will continue to need a bid or a budget transfer. I think the difference between those two schools and similar to Magnolia Webster is a facility that is proximately 100 years old magnolia was built in the 30s. We have much better information on Ingram high school and its much more attractive projects to bidder. So from a risk standpoint I see one project in which we have some risk and an Ingram high school I do not believe we have a lot of risk. I think from a program contingency standpoint for BTA IV I feel comfortable making this recommendation to you. I also think and I dont mean to confuse the matter but I think we also need to talk about BEX IV a little bit. And the program contingency there I will inform the board that Lincoln High School has bid, and it has bid within its Mac project budget that will remind the board that you did supplement that budget in June of this year for Windows and for repair of the masonry on the exterior of that building. But we do still have three projects to bid on BEX IV they do not bid until next year or later as well. And they are Queen Anne, Bagley, and Wing Luke. So I just wanted to. Inform the board that theres another levy and that too has some projects in it too is in a very heated construction market those projects. We feel very comfortable with where we're at at Wing Luke. We we do have concerns about Bagley and queen Anne we're working with our architectural team to keep those budgets constrained as possible within the levy and we're trying not to mix funds at this moment in time. We've got projects identified in backs for that. We moved dollars from the banks for program contingency if needed. We have projects identified in BTA IV and we only move funds funds from the BTA for program contingency. When we opened bids on October 25th I will note that we got three bids. We had much better subcontractor participation 31 bidders picked up documents and the bids were all very close. When we bid this project in the spring there was a $5 million difference between that are number one and bidder number two. Bidder number one and been a number two was just a couple hundred thousand dollars in difference some better number three was a million nine thousand dollars higher then that our number one seat and see were much more compressed. We had hoped. And I'm going to say I'd hoped to have this project bid within budget and were recommended to go forward with this project. It will open one year late, we'll open in the fall of 2019 in lieu of the fall of 2018. We think the added time will enhance the quality of the work that we get. We're also bidding later. So I open it up to questions. Pinkham: With. Three bids this time around. How close were they to the first two? Were they closer to the higher or the lower or was….? Best: They were actually closer to the lower. And I have both the tabulation forms in front of me the low bidder with us with selected alternates in the spring was $26,832,080 and this is what we're recommending at this time 26 million two hundred seventeen thousand five hundred dollars. So weather first and I should point out at this moment in time and it's noted in the bar we are not recommending at this time either acceptance of the covered play area. Which was alternate number five or we accept recommending acceptance of the construction of two learning commins on the upper floor at Magnolia elementary school both of those would be highly desired. Both of those are. Items that we have constructed in our other projects to date the learning commons allows flexibility learning it allows individual learning to occur there. It allows participatory learning to occur there. Covered play area. Obviously you know the benefit of having a covered play area for rainy day recess. And so these are difficult decisions. We're hoping that we can do some value engineering with our contractor after we award this project to see if there are other ways that we can construct these amenities to at a lower cost. Are there other things that we could shift around to lower cost but we are not recommending them at this time. Peters: Dir Harris? Perkins: And since you mentioned you brought up Webster's or any intentions or plans was appropriate as far as what grade levels it may serve? Best: We're still focusing on that one. We don't have a solution to that yet. But obviously before we bring that to you. So we're just trying to stay focused on this magnolia project for tonight. Bennet: Two quick questions one value engineering 2. What sort of MWBE purchased reputation if any? Best: I don't know the answer to your latter question. I'm sure there is some MWBE participation, however there are no MWBE participation requirements articulated in our contract. But I am sure that some of these firms do have. That. I'm sure the low bidder does have some MWBE for subcontractors working on this project. Harris: As a rule. Do we ask for MWB in our bid documents? Best: No We do not. Harris: Interesting. And value engineering real quick because we're running out of time on the clock for the video. Best: We are continually doing value engineering on all of our projects. We saw a couple opportunities for making some minor modifications on this project between the spring bid and the fall bid. We did not make substantial alterations. The project was really designed in accordance with our educational program. We articulated a couple areas that we would have as alternates if we had bids similar to the second bidder in the spring that would give you some options but we eliminated a concrete sidewalk on the project and then made some minor finished changes on the value engineering between and eliminated one stairwell. So one last question Director Burke and we do have to move on. Because we have a. Burke: Quick comment. If if if we think we're a tough crowd the BEX oversight committee that asks questions of Richard Best about how contingency funds are going to be used, they are really a tough crowd in terms of making sure that we're not burning through contingency dollars before we get through a high number of projects so I wanted to again acknowledge them. As I read this. We're looking at. The previous bid came in 5.7 million give or take over. This one is. Essentially $5 million over but include some alternates. Is that is that an appropriate characterization that the through the delay we saved about 700000 and got some alternates? Best: I would say we saved $700000 we had alternate selected and the other bid as well Director Burke, because there were some alternatives we had to make a choice between one or the other. OK. So I guess so though we did save some money. I think we saw we lost a little in escalation. For the extended cut construction period. I also think though that we will see benefit there long term on operational cost because I think we'll have enhanced quality. OK. Burke: The crux of the question is would you recommend in the future that if we have a bid that comes in high that we try to schedule it at a certain time of the year. Best: I think the guidance of building projects in the fall is very good. I do not think we will get good good bids. Latter part of April in May. We need to avoid those months we've struggled the past three years on projects that have bid in those time periods so it's going to require restructuring. We hope you know we do not have a lot of projects going forward as we've completed you know thinking for 16 of the 20 BEX IV projects are either under construction or complete. So you have to close the conversation right now because we have another tape changing moment which means we're actually going to have to conclude the meeting because we are now going to a adjourn to I’m sorry, we’re going to recess into executive session. The board is now immediately recessing the regular board meeting into executive session to consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase which is scheduled for 30 minutes anticipated and time of 11:02 P.M. The meeting will adjourn at the conclusion of the executive session. Thank you. From. do my dissertation service public et contrat administratif online John Jay College of Criminal Justice.