June 13, 2025 at 7:30 AM - Board of Education Regular Monthly Meeting

Discussion:  President Lutkemeier opened the meeting at 7:34 am.  The meeting notice was advertised in the June 5th publication of the Webster County Sun.  "The Open Meetings Act" updated poster was displayed in the meeting room.

Discussion:  No guests were in attendance and public comment was not utilized.  However, a bat made an appearance toward the end of the meeting.  

Discussion:  Mr. Bauer reported the following:

1. Legal updates and policy updates have consumed me the last month. As you can see when you look at the agenda.

2. Still waiting on Budget workbooks from the state auditor’s office. Hopefully, I have them by the end of this month.

3. The ESU-9 Superintendents meeting will be next week.

4. NASB Leaders and Law Conference was yesterday in Kearney.

5. Board Retreat this year in August, Bladen - board meeting room. I will make sure you get a decent meal that night.

6. Just curious what everyone else is seeing in terms of changes in valuations?

7. Another friendly reminder that I think we are going to be in a position where voting to take the additional 7% would be highly responsible of you as board members, even if I do not need to utilize it in my property tax request.

8. Preschool out of district conversation.
   
   Mr. Bauer also stated that he would get an estimate from Louis Galvedon for labor to install doors at the elementary.  The estimate would be based on getting the doors through Square Deal Lumber.

Discussion: 

Mr. Drake was unable to be in attendance.  Mr. Bauer read the following report:

Completed Events:
May 15: Elementary Concert
May 19: Honors Program and Field Day
May 20: Last Day of School
June 7: Surplus Garage Sale

Upcoming Events:
Gym Floor Resurfacing - June 25-July 6
Webster County Fair Fashion and Talent Show - July 21st
Jump Start/PreK Summer School - July 28-August

Information:
Summer cleaning/updates underway.
Playground Surfacing: Rubber Mulch/Field Turf. Mr. Bauer also stated there is a grant that could help finance this project.
Night Custodian: 3-4 support staff members will split the duties.
Handbooks are a work in progress. Mr. Jones and I will work to have them ready at the July meeting.

PD/Meetings:
June 18: 504 Workshop at ESU 9

Discussion: 

Professional Development

May 21st - Staff In-Service
June 9th-11th - NCE Conference (Kearney)
July 14-17 - AP Calculus (Omaha)
July 22nd-23rd - Coaches Clinic
July 23rd-25th - Admin Days
July 23rd - NCSA Meeting
August 6th - TVC Fall Meeting

JH/HS Academics

May 15th - Semester Finals
May 16th - Semester Finals
May 20th - Last Day of School for Students
June 3rd-6th - JH/HS Summer School
June 9th-10th, 12th-13th - JH/HS Summer School
Other:  4th Quarter / Semester 2 Honor Roll has been released.

JH/HS Sports / Activities

May 23rd-24th - State Track
    Katy Soucek - 4th Place Disc
    Katelyn Strampher - 5th Place Disc
    Kaylee Karr - 6th Place Mile
    Makenna Karr, Sophie Schmidt, Kaylee Karr, Paige Faimon - 7th Place 4x4 Relay

May 27th - Start of Summer Weights
May 28th-29th - State Golf
June 13th - TVC All-Star Volleyball Game
    Emma Schmidt

June 14th - TVC All-Star Basketball Games
    Girls - Emma Schmidt, Katy Soucek
    Boys - Casey Conway, Lane Conway

June 25th-July 6th - Gyms are closed for refinishing
June 27th - Sports Physicals

Other:
    General Summer Repairs and Cleaning have started

Discussion:  Attached you will find the proposal from Big Als Bins LLC for a bus barn in Bladen.  The Building Committee met with Alan on Friday, May 30th to discuss the plans and to go over the outline of the proposal.  

This would be expensed out of the Special Building Fund with the Payment terms built into the contract agreement.  

Discussion:  Mr. Drake has gotten about 10 bids for rubber mulch for the elementary playground.  We would like to mulch the rock areas and lay down some turf on the grass area (With not much grass area we will never be able to keep grass there as there is such a high amount of traffic in that specific area).  

Rooster Rubber came in with the best estimate and reviews from schools.  
 
$24,620 with weed barrier.  Attached is the bid sheet.

I would like to use Special Building Funds for this new purchase.  

Discussion:  Our firewall is out of service on January 1.  With us updated our WAP's and our cabling this summer it would probably be wise to replace the firewalls at that time instead of in January.  Attached is the lowest quote we could find.

Discussion:  2022-2023 Amounts
Pre School - Breakfast = $1.50. Lunch = $2.50
K-6 - Breakfast = $2. Lunch = $2.75
7-12 - Breakfast = $2. Lunch = $3
Extra Milk = $.45
Seconds = $1.50
Adult/Staff Breakfast = $2.25
Adult Lunch = $3.75
2023-2024 Amounts
Pre School - 1/2 Day = $3. All Day = $5
K-6 - Breakfast = $2.25. Lunch = $3
7-12 - Breakfast = $2.25. Lunch = $3.25
Extra Milk = $.50
Seconds = $1.75
Adult/Staff Breakfast = $2.50
Adult Lunch = $4
2024-25 Amounts
Pre School - 1/2 Day = $3. All Day = $5
K-6 - Breakfast = $2.30. Lunch = $3
7-12 - Breakfast = $2.30. Lunch = $3.25
Extra Milk = $.50
Seconds = $1.75
Adult/Staff Breakfast = $2.75
Adult Lunch = $4.25
Recommended 2025-26 Amounts
PK-6 - Breakfast = $2.40. Lunch = $3.10
7-12 - Breakfast = $2.50. Lunch = $3.35
Extra Milk = $.50
Seconds = $2
Adult/Staff Breakfast = $3
Adult Lunch = $4.50

Discussion:  We need to set classified wages for the 2025-26 school year.  The recommended motion would be to give everyone a $.50 hourly raise across the board. 

Discussion:  Bus pay proposal for the 2025-26 school year reflects the usual incremental increase for route, shuttle and trips.  

Wait time will remain at $15 per hour or the higher of minimum wage for the foreseeable future.  

Conference schools are paying anywhere from $72.50 to $88 for routes.  We are at $78 with this increase which is where I feel we should be when comparing length and time spent on the road compared to amount paid.  

Discussion:  These aren't being utilized.  I think we need to sell at least one of them. My preference would be both of the ford tractors to someone who will utilize them.  

Discussion:  As the list of required policies, reviews, reapprovals, and hearings grows, we eliminated the list from this policy so it did not need to change so often. Instead, we will continue to update and provide subscribers with the Annual Notices, Hearings, Reviews, and Trainings document that is released with the policy updates each year. There is no requirement to list these obligations inside of a policy.

Discussion:  A couple of tweaks were made to this policy to remove references to the Biden Administration Title IX rules, which are no longer in effect.

Discussion:  School districts are generally prohibited from engaging "in the construction of any public works involving architecture or engineering unless the plans, specifications, and estimates have been prepared and the construction has been observed by" a licensed Nebraska architect or professional engineer. However, the law provides an exception to this requirement when the "contemplated expenditures for the complete project" are below a certain dollar amount. In July 2024, the Nebraska Board of Engineers and Architects increased this exemption from $119,000 to $144,000. Our recommended changes to Policy 3003 reflect this higher dollar amount for the projects that are exempt from the mandate to engage a licensed Nebraska architect or professional engineer.

Discussion:  During the regular review of policies, we noticed a citation was partially removed from Section G Allowability of Costs. This citation has been corrected.

Discussion:  During our federal fund audit the auditors recommended adding a provision to this policy to address the retention of federal awards records.  Said provision has been added to this policy. 

Discussion: 

KSB has updated this policy to reflect how changes to the handbooks operate. We’ve included the one sentence that was in policy 5034, and 5034 has now been eliminated. We made a few other tweaks that hopefully will clarify the handbook updating process, especially as new legal interpretations and guidance seem to be coming out daily.

Administration is permitted to make changes without board approval unless it is required by law or conflicts with a policy. Administration is also permitted to make changes (whether or not requiring board approval) and provide notice to affected individuals by just sharing the amendment and not resharing the full handbook, unless required by law. For example, if you add a new student conduct rule to the handbooks and intend for that to be used for discipline, under the Student Discipline Act the "board" would have to  approve that rule, and both students and parents must be provided notice prior to it being implemented. However, you wouldn’t have to reprint or reshare the entire handbook. You could just provide the amended section or provision.

Discussion:  This poilcy change eliminates an inappropriate reference to a nonexistent reimbursement.  

Discussion:  One of the legal requirements for school districts using the design-build project delivery system for school construction projects is for the school district to hire a performance-criteria developer (PCD), a licensed Nebraska architect or professional engineer. For projects with a cost of $896,000 or below, the timeframe and procedures for selecting and hiring the PCD can be shortened and simplified. The proposed revisions to this policy reflect that alternative. While updating this policy, we have also included changes in the organization of the policy and reformatting.

Discussion: 

We have amended this policy in light of the PowerSchool data breach this past year. The amendment provides that the district's data directory will include a list of approved vendors and contractors to ensure that information exists in a consolidated format. Additionally, as part of the incident response plan, this policy change encourages contacting an insurance provider as part of a school district’s response.

Note that the first section of this policy requires you (or your tech coordinator) to keep an updated list of computing devices, software, vendors with access to personally identifiable information and staff members’ usernames and passwords for any district software. The PowerSchool data breach is also a good reminder to be sure that this information is updated and that you know where to find it in the event of a breach.

Discussion: 

Death, taxes, and Title IX policy updates. These are the constants in life. As many of you are aware, the Biden administration issued regulations in 2024 that necessitated updates to this policy. The updates also allowed for more streamlined investigations but expanded definitions of sex discrimination. However, a federal court vacated the 2024 updates in their entirety. The new White House has stated its belief that the regulations from 2020 are still in effect. As a result of these changes, KSB is once again recommending a policy change. Option 1 is a significantly pared-down version of the 2020 policy, which maintains the required substance in a simplified version. We have also improved this policy based on our five years of experience addressing Title IX complaints under the framework instituted by the previous Trump administration. We believe this policy would satisfy any requirements required by a Trump-led Office of Civil Rights. Option 2 is a more aggressive option. This version is based on a close reading of the court decision that struck down the 2024 regulations, part of which rested on a rationale that vacating the 2024 rule would "‘cause a return to the status quo’ that existed for more than 50 years prior to its effective date." KSB believes the basis for this recent decision suggests that the 2020 regulations contain similar flaws. Thus, this policy focuses on the clear mandate laid out in federal statute and court decisions that require public school districts to respond to allegations of sexual harassment in their education programs and activities promptly and in a way that is not deliberately indifferent. This option is no less rigorous in requiring schools to be responsive, but it is less detailed and proscriptive in the granular procedures dictating how schools respond. This option allows for maximum flexibility in investigations, in exchange for undertaking some risk that the procedures that the school district employees may not strictly comply with a hyper-technical reading of the 2020 regulations. KSB will have additional Title IX guidance and forms available on the portal based on the option your board elects to assist your Title IX team comply with your board’s choice.

Discussion: 

The last time we reviewed this policy, X was called Twitter. In light of the changes in the social media landscape and recent court cases addressing official government accounts, it’s time for some updates.

We have proposed a host of relatively small and simple tweaks, but they are important. For example, we have added more detail, differentiating between personal and school-owned accounts. We’ve clarified staff use of social media for instructional purposes. We address "tagging," where the school accounts are tagged or mentioned in outside posts to increase traffic to the post.

We have also updated the relevant rules for deleting comments, blocking posts and users, and banning outside users on school-owned accounts. It’s important to note that this policy has always prohibited school-owned accounts from having comments "on" unless approved by the superintendent. When you enable comments, you take the bitter with the sweet. If you have not been following that part of the policy, now is a good time to review your practices and expectations for staff administering these accounts. If your practices differ from the policy, you should either change those or work with us to change the policy. There has been a lot of recent court action on the First Amendment rights of users interacting with individual school official accounts, like board members, and school-owned accounts operated by school employees.

Discussion: 

We have amended this policy to eliminate the provision that required the superintendent evaluation to occur at a board meeting. You may still evaluate the superintendent at a board meeting if you wish, but now you may also conduct the evaluation with the board president and superintendent, with a committee of the board and superintendent, or any other way you deem appropriate.

Note that if your board decides to conduct the evaluation outside of a board meeting, you should review your superintendent contract, as well.

Discussion:  We have revised this policy to remove the requirement that the training be at least one hour. Now, the length of the training is "a reasonable amount as determined by the school board." We have also added the statutory list of topics that may be covered in the training.

Discussion:  This policy has been revised to provide clearer procedures for the Attendance Officer to follow in responding to excessive absenteeism. The policy previously referred to external procedures that were inconsistently developed and adopted.

Discussion: 

During the 2024 session, the Unicameral amended sections 79-530 through 79-533 through LB 71 to give parents, guardians, and educational decision makers greater access to information about and involvement in educational practices. Those changes are reflected in this policy. Additionally, the current Unicameral again amended section 79-532 through LB 428 to add various requirements related to surveys administered by the school. These changes include allowing parents to obtain copies of the surveys through various methods as well as the ability to exempt their children from participating in the surveys.

This policy must be adopted by July 1, 2025. The policy must be developed with parental input from parents, guardians, and educational decisionmakers. It must be the subject of a public hearing before the school board before adoption by the board. As previously required, the policy must be reviewed annually and either altered and adopted as altered or reaffirmed by the board following a public hearing. Any public hearing must include a reasonable opportunity for public comments.

The school district must make the policy accessible on the school district's website by August 1, 2025. The policy must be accessible by a "prominently displayed" link on the website. If the policy is altered, the new version of the policy shall be made accessible within a reasonable time thereafter.

Finally, the school district must continue to comply with the PPRA survey requirements. This means schools must comply with Policy 5015 (federal law requirements) and Policy 5018 (state law requirements) when administering surveys.

Discussion: 

The introductory paragraph of this policy clarifies that "student records" generally do not include transitory communications such as emails, text messages, handwritten notes between school and home, and similar items. These types of communications are not typically maintained by the district.

Following that introduction, the policy presents three different options for the board to consider regarding what types of records the district will officially "maintain." Recently, we have seen a noticeable increase in requests from parents asking for complete copies of their children’s student records. At the same time, the rise in digital communication has complicated decisions about whether emails and text messages should be included in those records.

To address this, we have added a consistent reminder in each of the three options regarding what it means for the district to "maintain" a record. This serves as a clarification for both parents and school officials that, regardless of which option the board selects, the general rule excluding most emails and texts from the definition of "student records" still applies.

Discussion:  Section 79-2,158 requires each school district to adopt a written dress code and grooming policy to be implemented at the start of the 2025-26 school year that is consistent with the model policy developed by the State Department of Education. We’ve revised our policy to be consistent with the Department’s model policy (don’t shoot the messengers), though hopefully a bit more concise.

Discussion:  The policy has been combined into policy 3026 and is now eliminated.

Discussion: 

LB 140 requires schools to have policies prohibiting the use of cell phones and other electronic devices while at school or attending a "school instructional function." Of course, that term is not defined. We assume they are talking about field trips and other off-site curricular activities, not extracurricular activities.

However, the bill also allows boards and administrators to permit use of cell phones when "determined appropriate." So you "shall" have a ban but may deem any use appropriate. Consequently, we have not proposed any changes to policy 6025, because all of those options remain lawful.

As a result, we believe some schools will keep their current policy in place heading into 25-26. Here’s the issue. LB 140 says, "The development of the policy shall include stakeholder participation to ensure that such policies are responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community." It’s unclear what that means if you already have a policy in place that was approved at a public meeting. The law does not require the formation of a committee or that you prospectively seek input now. It ties that input to the"development"of a policy,not any future amendment.

Here’s our opinion on your options. If you solicited stakeholder feedback when developing your policy initially, or if staff, students, and parents provided input voluntarily at that time, we believe it would be lawful to simply move forward without seeking additional feedback or even reapproving the policy you have in place. For example, we know some schools conducted a stakeholder survey or invited stakeholders to board meetings if they had input when creating the policy. We believe that is sufficient to meet the requirements of LB 140.

If you did not receive stakeholder feedback initially, you have two choices. First, you could intentionally reach out for feedback in some way now, such as via survey, ad hoc working group, or to specific individuals whose input you think would be helpful. After obtaining that feedback, you could then reapprove the policy as it exists or with any amendments you see fit. We’re happy to help with those. Second, you could take the slightly more aggressive approach that, because the policy was approved at a duly noticed public board meeting with the policy on the agenda, stakeholders had an opportunity for feedback at that time. In our view, this is as much a political question as a legal one.

The bill also has 5 listed exceptions that schools must make to any restrictions on cell phone and device use. They are not required to be in the policy. Some of the exceptions we already include in our 4 policy options, such as use by a student when deemed necessary because of a disability accommodation, like a student with diabetes who uses a phone to monitor their levels.

One particular exception that could prove tricky permits students to use cell phones regardless of the strength of the school’s ban in cases of "emergencies and perceived threats of danger." Of course, those terms are not defined, nor is it clear who decides what constitutes an emergency or threat. We have elected not to bring attention to this exception for fear that every student and parent will argue that the exception applies to them. You may see other policies throughout the state that list all of these exceptions, so we wanted to let you know it does exist and explain our rationale for not suggesting changes to our current policy options.

Discussion:  The policy had a discrepancy in the hearing request section. We aligned those timelines, which are already shortened to comply with the expedited hearing obligations under the emergency exclusion statute.

Discussion:  The policy requires updating to remove specific references to guidances and training that have since been updated. Review the approved trainings from DHHS and the NDE Brain Injury Support page for all updated materials.

Discussion: 

LB 89 establishes the Stand with Women Act. Originally, the bill would have required schools to designate locker rooms, bathrooms, and athletic teams based on sex as male, female, or coed. As the bill progressed, it was amended to include only requirements for designating athletic teams and limiting participation in athletics based on sex. The law defines sex in terms of reproductive organs and functions. The law also requires every school to have a policy implementing the new requirements.

There are a few other items to note. While the bill eliminated explicit provisions for bathrooms and locker rooms, it does require the policy to address the "conduct of visitors and the public." We are not sure what that means, because there is no explanation in the bill. We assume that is a nod of deference to existing policies and practices as it relates to things like restrooms that patrons and visitors can use when on school grounds. For that reason, we have simply said all visitors and members of the public shall comply with existing policies and law.

Discussion:  Section 79-262.01 requires school districts to develop and adopt a policy consistent with or comparable to the model policy developed by the State Department of Education. We went with "comparable to" and tried to draft a policy that won’t be too onerous compared to common and best practices we’ve seen prevalent across the state.

Discussion:  The next regular Board of Education meeting is set for July 15th, 7 pm at the Elementary in Bladen.