August 13, 2024 at 4:00 PM - Working Committees

Discussion:  Stull called the meeting to order at approximately 4:00pm. 

 

Discussion:  Stull -if everyone can please stand for a moment of silence and then the pledge. 
(Pledge was recited)
Safdie-we still have a couple of more minutes before 4:00 and Teresa is not here so I will be taking the position of Vice chairman and conducting this meeting. I'm going to wait another two or three minutes. Are we at 4:00 yet? So I will call this meeting to order now we have already said pledge thank you for leading that and the moment of silence. 
 

 

Discussion:  Safdie-our action items is to approve the minutes of the July 9th meeting, we have two committees that were present in the... building grounds and policy committee, uh is there a motion to approve both minutes?
Stull- motion move to approve.
King-move to approve. 
Safdie- is there a second?
Stull-second.
Safdie-any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. 
Stull/King/-aye. 
Safdie- all oppose say nay, ayes have it, the minutes have been approved. 

Discussion:  Safdie-the next item incidentally if you did not hear uh Teresa Boston is not able to be here so I am conducting the meeting for this short brief period of time, thank you for your patience. The policy committee I understand that Rebecca Hamby will not be here today and Elizabeth are you handling the policy committee?
Stull- I am, yes. 
Safdie- okay would you like to begin your meeting?
 

Discussion:  Stull-we have a few policies up for review and possible discussion. We'll start with policy1.200 method of election of officers.  I know there was some there were some corrections that we needed to go ahead and discuss making on this policy, one of them was changing the line one with waiting until the September meeting to go ahead and make that August. 
Stout- well we needed to keep the legislative representative in there for in order to change that to match the proper title now and then  it came back for some discussion regarding pro tem, need for pro tem and when. 
Stull- that was going need to be changed to Chairman pro tem and that was supposed to be in the August meeting not September but the other ones were supposed to be for the September meeting.
Stout-correct.
Nichols-and so okay so my question is I go back to the Robert's rules of order when it says we already have all of that in place.
Stull- but we don't have it in place because we're going into a new session in September, and we won't have a chairman or a vice chair. 
Nichols- no because what it says is that this if something comes up the secretary calls order and then appoints that person and then we do but if we don't have anything come up then we don't need a pro tem. I don't understand why we need this person. 
Stull- my thought is the fact that if we-we're the board and if we're able to go ahead and get in front of that knowing that we have that coming up then we should go ahead and do that even though the director of schools is considered the secretary that is a whole job in and of itself as being the director and they shouldn't have to be tasked with conducting, setting up the meeting when we should be able to go ahead and set and get in front of that in the first place. 
Nichols-so Mr Stepp how do other counties handle this with their chairman and or excuse me with their school directors how they do it with...
Stepp-I haven't seen this happen before. 
Nichols- ever?
Stepp- I haven't but I was at a building level for so long so this is a new new for me also but Roberts Rules of Order you know sets up a venue and I think we talked about tthat last time yeah where you can do that you really don't have to have in policy. 
Stout- but yeah it says that the secretary calls the meeting to order and the assembly immediately elects a chairman pro tem to preside during that session and then such offices terminated by the entrance of the president or a vice president,  so I mean if a if a need comes up then I mean Mr. Stepp would know if a need comes up that we have to meet on in that 3-week Gap-he could advise us that a meeting would need to be called and then we could go ahead and just vote for a pro tem for that meeting to get us through that 3-we period.  I just hate to see us change the policy when we've got Robert's Rules of Order that...
Stull- because we know that the problem is there we had the problem two years ago, we have the same problem again and so we should go ahead and make arrangements for if that problem should arise we should have something in place that does not have to involve taking the director of schools away from his primary director....
Stout-he's the one that's going to know if we need to meet, he would be the one who knows that. 
Safdie- may I may I talk, thank you. I I think the primary model that we have here is the County Commission and the County Commission has a full election slate where all of their 18 County Commissioners are being uh going up for election so they don't know who their chairperson is going to be so what they've done is they've turned it over to the mayor to allow the mayor to conduct the meeting so it is possible to do that;  the question is whether or not this board would like to use that model or whether it likes the pro tem and as I was discussing this with other members of other officers uh in the county um you know they're they're both good methods one does not overrule the other method; now it's true that in Roberts Rules of Order there's a statement that says that uh somebody will take over and call the meeting but when we have a situation we don't have a completely new board being elected every year every two years excuse me, so consequently our situation is different from the county commissions, they have to have their mayor they have to have their director call the meeting but with the pro tem officer and I don't see any reason why we can't have a pro tem officer um elected person um they can call the meeting without having to uh give that position of authority to the director of school and I prefer not giving that that option to the director of schools when it's within our capability of keeping that structure within the board of education so that's my opinion. 
Stull-I agree with your opinion. 
Hale- I agree with you Mr. Safdie. 
Stout- well if we've got a board who feels like the Roberts rules of order isn't enough to address that situation um and that we're not going to entrust Mr. Stepp to let us know when a meeting needs to be called which yeah I have a problem with um my recommendation would be to add something to the policy like this-not in the first paragraph but at line nine where the "in the event" starts there, scratch that but add something along the lines of in the event there is a vacant chair or vice chair position in an election year the board may choose to elect a pro tem chair at the August board meeting to serve until the September board meeting. 
Safdie-do you have that written down?
Stout- I do. 
Safdie- okay I really like that.
Nichols-I like that.
Stull-yes. 
Safdie-that that's that's fine. 
Stout- and that fills that gap and provides somebody to work with Mr. Stepp in a chair position for those three weeks, but again, I think we're making a permanent change to a policy when we've got something in place already so. 
Safdie- well I understand, and it's six of one and a half dozen of another; your preference is legitimate and good so are the other board members, and it's just a question of who votes for what at this point, it's not a um it's voting either way is not critical for the function of the board, okay. Your statement of how you want the policy written is excellent, thank you.  Would you like to read it again for the minute so that we can...
Stout- sure so um on line two we'll leave the legislative representative in there, but it should read and a legislative representative, scratch out and a pro tem and then on line nine where the blue writing starts in the event we're going to scratch out the there is no chairman or vice, we'll just say in the event there is a vacant chair and vice chair position in an election year the board may choose to elect a pro tem chair at the August board meeting to serve until the September board meeting. 
Safdie- okay there's a motion before, is there a second?
Stull-so replacing what is in blue there and then yes the motion is to implement those changes that Shannon went ahead and read off.
Safdie-yeah is there a second on that?
Stull-second. 
Safdie- okay all in favor? I guess you should be doing that I'm sorry.
Stull- actually I have to have Sheri, so the motion is to go ahead and use the changes that Shannon went ahead and read off. 
Nichols- first I'm going to say Mr. Stepp, I trust you so if we had this issue come up that you would be able in capable of taking care of it and if everybody wants to do this let's just get it over with,  yes I'll second it.
Safdie-right and you know something your new board can come in and change that if they so choose. 
King-I'm pretty sure they will, waste of our time.
Safdie- all right. 
Stull- um motion approved on 1.200. 

Discussion:  Stull-the next policy is 5.106 um is there any discussion?
Patton- question um this I've been given this rationale for changing policy 5.106 today um was it Ben that somebody talked with about this?
Stepp-so HR um did search this out and come up with these rationals basically to save money for the new hires coming in, especially the hourly workers so if they approve uh and do the health form I believe which is in that that justification you have it allows them to not spend $165 to $200 just for employment, getting ready to be employed by us. 
Patton- my question comes because it says this says because the statute says that staff must be free of communicable diseases the policy attorney at TSBA informed us that creating an employee health declaration form would cover this for the district. I'm asking was that Ben was that...
McCartney-Jennifer White.
Patton-do we have that in writing?
McCartney- we do.
Patton-We've got that in writing that that is what they are recommending? The reason that I ask is this, so the statute let me come back where it is and I don't you know if that's good nough that's fine um this the statute says no person who has any contagious or communicable disease in a form that might endanger the health of school children shall teach in any school and any teacher must submit to a physical examination by competent Physicians when so required by the local Board of Education, so I my question comes from the standpoint that what we're saying is that we will, we're saying no person shall be employed who refuses to sign a health declaration form so what we're basically saying is that we're going to trust anybody that we hire to tell us that they don't have a contagious or communicable disease that endangers the health of school children and if that's fine and we have no further liability from that then great. 
Nichols- I agree. 
Patton- but I would want a little more notice than a few minutes to research that and confirm that with and maybe whoever is coming on as your new board attorney might want to look at that issue, my question is if we hire somebody on the basis that they told us, an unnotarized statement that says hey I signed this on this date and I'm telling you I don't I don't have any such disease, if somebody, some kid gets something from somebody that we hire I I mean do they have a right of action against Cumberland County Schools, my thought is yes but you know that's just something that the board ought to consider and again this is just a very cursory-not I wouldn't even call it an opinion it's more a question at this point uh because I just haven't had time to really look at that.
Safdie-so let me give you a theoretical or hypothetical situation so uh imagine that a person has a um-alcoholism and is a disease okay,  and so is drug addiction.
Patton- and I don't In fairness I don't think either one of those would apply Mr. Safdie because we're talking about contagious or communicable diseases. 
Safdie-ahh, thank you sir, okay.
Stepp-yeah we can table it, and I'll do some more research on it. 
Patton-the way the statute reads versus how our policy how the proposed policy reads it causes me a little bit of pause and just you know if we've got other districts around us that are doing that and have changed their policy to that effect that's probably a pretty good sign that it's okay, and certainly you know my dealings with the attorneys at TSBA has been positive, and I'm not suggesting that they are wrong um but it's I got enough questions that want to look at it a little more.
Stepp-we can table it and I'll do some more research. 
Patton- fair enough.
Stull-okay so the next policy that we have up for discussion is uh policy 6.300 code of conduct and discipline, any discussion?
Stout- let me move my microphone back over here now Earl's done talking trying to get in my microphone okay so um I had asked for this to come back to the committee at the board meeting for us to look at a little closer in the interm talked with Mr Stepp, and he's got a few changes that he made to it to make sure that we are clear I just want to make sure we were clear on the code of conduct and discipline regarding the bullying and cyberbullying because of the new law that was in place that mandates that officers make an official report if they're aware that a minor has been a victim of bullying or cyberbullying they must also notify parents of the incident if the victim is a minor. An official report means a written report made by the law enforcement officers in the course of the officers official duties that the parent of a minor child who is identified as a victim in the report may obtain from the law enforcement officers employing law of law enforcement agency so my concern was since we carry that bullying and cyberbullying all the way from level one all the way up to level four but yet when we are looking at disciplinary procedures or disciplinary options there wasn't any kind of mention regarding making a report and notifying parents.  Mr. Stepp and I talked about that and I think you came up with a solution. 
Stepp- yeah I worked with uh Mr Magnusson and Mr Howard and Mr Fitzgerald with the sro's and they they're aware of the new law they already followed that before it became a law as far as reporting if it's uh confirmed s far as reporting and then um then once we report it to the SRO then they follow their procedures that's required by law so we put on each level in in blue you'll see it in each level, I put just law enforcement officials are contacted that was the language that TSBA used um so we just kind of pasted it on each level.
Stout- so if it does have to go to a report work cover no matter what level that happens and there's no surprises to anyone regarding the conduct and discipline if that should happen.
Stepp-and the red is all the TSBA recommendations for...that came from the law.
Stull-so with those changes are you then happy with that?
Stout-I think based on the new law and the discussions that Mr Stepp had with those that are involved in it yeah I think it...
Stull-there wouldn't be any additional changes to this particular policy just what already is in here as far as with the blue as well?
Stout-yep.
Stull-okay um motion to approve.
Nichols-second. 
Stull- motion carries, next policy is policy 6.4052 opioid antagonist and as the policy reads right now um it does not have any of the um liability no liability for a student as far as if they went ahead and administer this so as the policy stands right now this was according to the new changes in the law um and I would recommend keeping it as is at this point um so motion to approve unless oh sorry discussion. 
Nichols- we can't change this this is law?
Stull-no this part but there was the um last month there was a Good Samaritan Clause that was added basically and students were put in that portion of it for having no liability if they were to go ahead and use this on another student and that part isn't in the actual law itself. 
Nichols-so we're not held legally, Earl? If a child does...
Stull-that part isn't in this policy now.
Nichols-it says right here that you can't prohibit students from possessing it. 
Stull- right not administering it. 
Nichols- and so what happens if a kid shoots another kid with one how liable are we that's what I'm asking I mean I know this may not be a part of this but it is a part of this. 
Safdie- it is a part I agree with you. 
Patton- I think there's a misprint of the code section on the footnote here and that's why I'm trying to I'm trying to get back to the bear with me just a minute. 
Nichols- I'm just a little curious who's legally responsible if a kid shoots another kid with one of these pens. 
Stull- according according to the statute it says that they can carry it, there's no talk there's no talkab out liability for students.
Nichols-Can they sue us?  So the parent gets mad that the kid got shot, they don't go after the parents he goes after us the school district I mean my God this is crazy, I've never seen anything like this. 
Safdie-did you read this part the school nurse or trained School Personnel May utilize the school school supply of opioid antagonist to respond to a drug overdose and these are professional people and now the next one anybody can do it.
Stull- it says that yes in the law that they are the ones that are allowed to administer it but it also does not prevent anyone else from it says that they can carry it.
Nichols-we can't argue with this obviously, where do we put can we add a protection onto ourselves onto this?
Safdie-do you agree with that policy?
Stepp-well it's law, so I don't have a choice. 
Stull- we can't go ahead and say that there's no,  that the student has no liability.
Safdie-um I got a question is a student allowed to bring asperin to school?
Nicols-no, gosh you can't even let them use a tanning bed.
Stepp-we have procedures for all that.
Stull-Earl did you find that?
Patton- I did I'm reviewing it right now again.
King-does everybody know the difference between an antagonist and an agonist.
Nichols- please tell us. 
King- The Agonist helps the opioid be more effective the antagonist keeps it from being effective. 
Patton- you know if you've got a student uh I guess the fear here is that the law does not allow you to prohibit a student, employee or visitor from possessing an opioid antagonist while the person is on school property or attending a school-sponsored activity, and so the question you're presenting me is how much liability does the school system have if unbeknownst to us someone has on their person an opioid antagonist that we can't prohibit them from having pursuant to state law and if they mistakenly administer that product to another individual... I mean there's not I mean look I don't think I don't think the school system has a lot of liability there I mean how could we have prevented that how in what way were we negligent in that circumstance and that's the question that you got to ask when it comes to a liability uh situation. 
Nichols- um and then we go back on it then they said the law says they can have it, and it's not...
Patton- well I think you got to look at the legislative intent here and that's to prevent overdoses at any cost and so that's the purpose here um and I think the liability concern that the board might have here is is understandable on one hand but um you know there's a risk in everything that we do um and in this situation I think you know the the the writing on the wall is pretty clear legislature says you can't prohibit someone from possessing that product so if that's the case what what can you really do you know. I would hope that the likelihood of  something like that happening uh was not great um but you know let's hope something stupid doesn't happen you know because of this law. That's that's my thoughts.
Stull-okay given all of that is there a motion to approve with the TSBA recommendations?
Nichols-  we don't have choice. 
Stull- I don't think we do. 
Nichols- I second. 
Stull- well I need you to make a motion. 
Nichols- make a motion oh I can make a motion?
Stull- because I'm the acting chairman. 
Nichols- so I make the motion that we accept 6.402.
Stull-second, motion carries and that is all of the policies that we have for today.

Discussion:  Stull-Is there a motion to adjourn?
Safdie-well Madam I think we can make that motion to adjourn. 
Stull- anyone want to second?
King-second.
Stull-meeting adjourned.