##VIDEO ID:8EvQr_dY2Cw## good evening and welcome to this working session of the Lakeville Area Schools Board of Education for attendance purposes I'll go around and have everybody introduce yourself and say Your Role Kim Baker chair David Anderson Vice chair Brian Thompson Board of Education Harley Anderson board of education Terry ly Board of Education JY Kell her Board of Education Michael Balman interim superintendent all right thank you very much for doing that um our meeting tonight is audio recorded so make sure that you speak loudly and clearly so that the microphones May pick you up our first item for discussion tonight is the board policy committee um this item was added to the agenda um because we have had trouble scheduling the policy committee um and I just want to make sure that we can discuss that right now and see if we need to switch out um any board members to make sure that that committee still meets um so right now it's Carly Judy and Brian correct I am not available until the uh January 1st for Wednesdays is it I've got I've got a prior commitment so I'm not available okay is there some one that can sit in for Brian until January 1st sure you want to do it Terry fine all right that's all I had for that is there any other questions about that timer the next meeting we met wait uh we're not meeting tomorrow we're meeting next week Wednesdays at 6:30 is it the 20th it's the 20th is the next one 6:30 to 7:30 every other week got it only an hour that's wonderful I'm glad it volunteered all right perfect that takes care of that item um the next item that we have on the agenda is the uh update for policy 205 uh policy committee does someone want to uh update the board on what you've done with this policy do you want to or do you want I was going to say you did and I met and went up with this policy but you did the actual yes so we just went through and like we've been doing um with Brian and myself and Bri we were just going through and comparing our policy to um Minnesota School Board Association to see if there's any updates that need to be made and then if there's anything that we would be recommending to change to better fit our processes or our district needs and um I think all the changes that you see here I not I don't believe there were any that we actually changed for ourselves because the open meeting and close meeting uh policy is really dictated by Statute from start to finish so all the changes that you see on here are because they were changes in the msba one so I have a question just based on some of the changes of this policy um for item um 6A or six and then number eight it says that um meetings provided by interactive technology um is that all school board meetings or is that working sessions like what what does that include um that that would be well any meeting whether it's a work session or a regular meeting or whatever is a meeting so that is the way I'm reading it is any meeting okay yeah see under the definition y okay see so so anytime we're meeting so that's it I've got additional comments on that one or I can wait you I've got no that's that's the only question I had yeah okay so uh the one that was added to policy 208 I'm sorry 205 all highlighted in red was meetings by interactive technology a meeting may be conducted by interactive technology Zoom Skype or or other similar electronic means I think I'd like to remove Zoom Skype or other elect similar electronic means just because uh we don't know what kind of Technology will be used 3 or four years from now uh in compliance well it's basically what interactive technology is we don't yeah so yeah I I would like to yeah and so I also want to add so I was also reviewing the Minnesota School Board Association I think I think it was like part of phase 2 training and they shared some comments around interactive technology and how it's being used so I would like to add I don't know if you want to use keep that line there but I would like to add the following um as a subcomponent a interactive technology must be provided if a board member is unable to physically join a meeting and has provided a three-day notice prior to the meeting B the board member must provide a location that is accessible and open to the public C all members must be able to see and hear each other and then d a roll call vote is required for all votes during interactive use so this is all content directly from the msba um uh PowerPoint that they shared for whatever it's called the uh makes sense the phase two then it becomes a bit more clear on exactly what needs to be done in that respect because again interactive meetings aren't aren't like one of those where someone can be denied because if a person that is unable to physically join they have the option and and this is one of those that as a district we need to be able to provide so we have been operating from that perspec we have but it's not in policy that's all not in policy but I think um it actually it was in a policy um yeah for some reason I'm not sure but I I know that's been the the practice and I believe it's in a policy but I don't know if it's this one or another 200 well so let's say it's in another policy but we still want it here in this one well that's what I was just looking to reference I was just going to look this up because they've got um labor okay um yeah that's true I know exactly I know exactly we're talking about meetings I feel like it should be to put it there yeah um so quickly just you don't have to read the whole thing but what were your three your four bullet points whatever that you said uh interactive technology must be provided board members must provide a location that is accessible uh all board members must be able to see and each other and then a roll call vote needs to be uh deployed y are you done with your questions because I have another one no I I've got more I'm sure overlap specify um when it says we must be provided is that like our tablets is that what you me mean yeah yeah yeah all right so then my other question is on number nine the purchase and sale of property um this came up when we had a land sale deal earlier um actually last year and I'm wondering um one of the some of the feedback that we received from community members was having like a public comment or a session where they could um share on on that sale of the land and I think that um in the case that we went through last time that would have been beneficial because there were things that we were not aware of as a board um with that particular piece of land so I'm wondering if there's something that can be added to that so there are we do have a policy around public hearings so we could do if we are hearing from that we can establish a time and a place for a public hearing to discuss that particular piece of property or that particular item so we do have a policy about public hearings so could we add it on here as as part of the steps for sell for selling a piece of property that the district owns yeah I think what you can but um but we have I mean the policy the the policy that we have already allows us to do that for anything not just the sale of property it allows us to do it but it's not saying that we will do it and that's I think that's what I'm asking I think we should do it so so H let me understand for any property that is being purchased or sold you want to have a designated uh for public comment in some capacity cor is that for right before a decision is made or is that something for before that was the property is being discussed well I mean if you look at like when the city is doing things like that like it'ss published in the paper and people know and for this particular thing that we um had for that it it wasn't part of the so if it's the law like we need to be doing that it's not the law this this here I would that's what I'm asking is if that that we would do that for purchase or a sale that magnitude or whatever may be so in in letter D it does state that the actual purchase or sale must be approved at an open meeting and the purchase price or sales price is public data so I'm assuming because it's at an open meeting we do have public comment and people can and provide commentary around that but I get that but I'm saying like this is a specific public comment for the sale or purchase of a public hearing that she wants to but I I I would recommend not putting it in this policy saying that we have to because um first of all I think the attorney would probably say probably no because it could open us up to liability if that did not happen because if you go to Minnesota statutes to do this right um then this is what you're going to see here but the public hearing one is anytime we have issues that we want like we'll do it before um we'll do a public hearing before we have a levy referendum or we'll do a public hearing before we sell property we'll do a public hearing before we didn't have it before we sold property we didn't in this one but we could have well I mean we should have and so but you're an attorney like yeah we should have had one what's your what's your thought on this I said I said my piece on it I think it should be in there well as a local uh local governing body uh we can put whatever we want in this can we get check through legal can checked yeah yeah I mean this will go through msba would I think the benefit of that is when we sell land and we consult relevant policy than it is stated I can appreciate and I would want to hear from Leal whether that does create some problems because I think if we to your point Brian about there being um availability during public comment um I would certainly want time to consider stakeholders feedback before we're put to vote on it so a separate meeting would be good as supposed to like right before us making right s yeah so when you say um so is it public hearing a separate meeting yes yes yes it it it's in itself okay but purchasing gets like more complicated I feel like in some ways oh buying land that's a totally different process if we open it up that way advertises where we're going you know what I mean like there's a reason why we're able to have private meetings about some of that like sale seems more relevant to public where I mean people would have an opinion about us buying land potentially and they should have well that comes out in the levy referendum because you have to ask for money for it yes and so that that's approved through a levy and we've usually done it I would recommend if this is put in it's just for the sale of because we can sell without but I could see value in purchasing too and I get what you're saying where with that drive price is up but then then if it does then it's a lost deal then whoever's trying to sell it to us then guess what then we're not going to buy it if you're going to do that and so then we go back to the drawing board but it's public information like we're going to buy the land buy land no purchasing is not that is not that simple we we were able I mean because we're not just purchasing an acre or two we're purchasing 30 40 80 90 Acres and in this community there's not that many available we can't risk it and you will see like have you had experience with looking at what if if we're able to like when we purchase South we hired us we did land acquisition for I know and but we and you do have to do it under cover because of jeopardizing if they know uh government entities buying it it can be very costly and but but a public hearing could also be beneficial for those who live around that area that's being purchased don't they have a voice to say do I want a school building here or not how's that impact and I'm sure they do but do they have do they should they have a for to share their point of view if we're going to have a forum to have people who are selling before selling property and impacts them how is it any different from you know constituents who get impacted for for land that purchase I mean if you're going to do one I don't know well I don't well I'm just saying it's not very easy to buy 880 or 90 Acres of lot I agree acres of land within our school district I can I know and so if we jeopardize a purchase we jeopardize a building yeah I mean I can see both sides because I know when it's legal when this yeah when the city was when the city was you know looking at in terms of antlers there was a lot of feedback about that right so there's a lot of public feed back so it does help to have it but yeah maybe go okay can you have any more no I added that in here okay thank you Dave do you have any more no else do you have any questions no I just said was there anything else on that area no I okay good I've got a few more all right I open the door for you um section four procedures after regular meetings special meetings I i' like to add a letter F which is not there because uh so letter F I'd like to add wait I'm sorry where oh under under page two under procedures meetings regular meetings and special meetings uh we've got some ABCD and I'd like to add an F uh and the F would be all regular meetings and special meetings will be a video and audio recorded I'm here oh up page two but above emergency meetings correct okay got it I'm sorry there is no letter app so this would be in an addition okay and my addition would be all regular meetings and special meetings will be video and audio recorded regular meetings well that doesn't have to be in policy that's something that each board determines during I just say that all meetings should be video and audio recorded well but if it's not in policy then the next board can choose not to so in the spirit they can but they can also choose to change the policy agreed but if it would the policy well then yes they would have to then go and change it into policy but I don't want I mean if there's nothing wrong with having videos recorded and for for video and audio for for regular and special meetings and then for emergency meetings number three I would like to add G which would then be all emergency meetings will also be video and audio recorded if you just say all meetings then that covers I'm fine with that well it's not both though we don't video record these oh or close sessions I would if we just say all meetings it encompasses all of our meetings you don't except for closed obviously it says video and we don't do both no we haven't been doing both yeah I think like from from an accessibility standpoint I always worry about the meetings that are just audio recorded I I think it makes it hard for the public um I also would love to be able to have close captioning on all those meetings too to be honest but um you can just like take the link and put it in YouTube and it'll do the Clos captioning for you um just to trick someone taught me but yeah I I agree I I feel like meeting should be recorded but well that's fine I think that's a good discussion with the new board to establish that and and get their decision on it and see so the policy is presented now so the question is are you are you are you against it is that what I'm hearing I'm against putting it in policy I'm not against that I'm against adding it to policy because that doesn't guarantee adding it to policy then if if like we have um leadership development we're just going to come and we're going to do a team building event then are we going to need to audio record that are you I was going to give a point of clarification for work sessions they are video recorded just not streamed but part of our arable property or policy is for security reasons they are video recorded it's just not public oh that's very nice to know thank you very much for letting that because I don't think um just just for clarification for those that are listening online we did have someone from our tech department step in and say that all of the meetings are video recorded um for privacy reasons or security reasons I think is what he said and that um they just don't provide that video because it's not within policy it's not within practice right so when I so with this addition of all regular meetings and special meetings keep in mind I think what you're referencing would be uh not regular meetings those are staff development meetings and I think those no not staff development St we're doing board devel not be recorded yeah but see that's where we're starting to now get into this not so well it's it's very specific on what a regular meeting is here it's scheduled or of the regular meeting of the board shall be kept kept on file for things that are like regular meetings that are consistent so we're not doing ad hoc meetings I think for some of the board development meetings like depending on who we brought in that there would be proprietary agreed but but that wouldn't qualify as a regular meeting right yeah is a work session a regular meeting yes technically it is as long as there's a form of the board for a long time we were doing every other week or not every other week but once a month we were doing board development so that was a regular like part of our one of our work sessions right which we probably will do with the on oncoming board members is have one week out of the month potentially that's for development focused so that does become like a regular meeting so then we can say all regular meetings and special meetings will be video and audio recorded except for board development s and I'm recommending that you say that and establish that with your new board so that they understand what it is and how you're going to operate and it does not need to be documented in policy so I would like to document it in policy since we're working on policy 205 right now so just a question like we don't have it in policy right now but we have all agreed to that so is the concern that a future board might not want things like you want it in policy so that it's not a board by board decision so if we're going to have a future it will still be a board by board decision I guess my my concern is that if we're working on policy 205 now then let's make that decision now but if you're ask if you're going to say that the future board should come back and look at 20 205 then why are we been looking at 205 right now well I mean I think looking at it'll be the I'm every board every board every year should be reviewing the 200 policies every board every year needs to know what all these policies are that because we didn't get um with the onboarding I know we didn't get through these policies but you should know what these policies are and how to op operate every single year this needs to be reviewed in January with new board members and existing just to refresh meetings recorded or not well what happens if like something happens and it doesn't get record well I think last time we talked about this you and I didn't want work sessions recorded but I I guess I think we we felt that way I'm okay I you know we felt that way because CU we felt that uh you're much more relaxed and open we didn't want without a camera on and a work session and I think that was a reason why a lot of people didn't want to do it so I guess I'm saying if we put this in policy and something happens where something gets messed up then it's like there's some I I can see the point of this is a practice we determine as opposed to but there's always the option the opportunity that something could be messed up you know what I mean like that's always going to be something that could happen it doesn't mean that we shouldn't write it down but I just say like just throwing it out I agree with what you're saying and if we're going to have legal check um some of these other things I don't know why we can't add that in and have them check that too okay that's just my opinion what else you got Brian huh all right next one uh if a person receives an actual notice of a meeting I'm sorry I think it's the page so the next page page three okay um if a person receive an act receives an actual notice of a meeting of the Board of Education uh at least 24 hours before the meeting all notice requirements are satisfied with respect to that person regardless of the method of the received notice so I just I just want to make clar uh clarification like if I if an email is does that count is that just want to make sure that we understand that definition okay good y thanks okay all right um um and then a clarifying one that I had was uh Clos meetings letter e uh section B uh the time in place of the closed meeting shall be announced at the public meeting and so I I just need a clarification on this one because I I don't recall how we do this uh if we wanted to have a closed meeting am I reading this as in we have to announce it that we're having a closed meeting during an open meeting before we can have the Clos we do that to the table we have the open meeting and then um we have to vote to move into Clos session we go in there got it and then we come back out okay yeah we we have to come back but you have to name the time and the place we just have to let them know that we're um moving into closed session and then we're going to be Ming meeting in the spruce room right um I forgot to add one for going up to written materials letter C uh we we are talking about any open meeting a copy of any printed materials including electronic communications uh will be shared and distributed or or available to all board members blah blah blah um I do want to add a third one that says any artifact shared or presented to the board shall be electronically available for public reference and added to I don't I don't know if you want to add it to the board book website uh the couple examples that I want to use that there's been past meetings where in a working session we see PowerPoint present presentations but community members have no idea what what's on it and then we've got um the survey guy comes and he shares the survey and and people are asking well what are the results they don't see it and so during a regular board meeting we provide all these artifacts in the agenda but we don't during working session so I know that there are some stories around there's pros and cons of sharing the material ahead of time before meeting because it's a draft like because because it's a draft but if it is something that the board is reviewing during a session uh wouldn't we want to just share that to the whoever wants to follow along that this is a draft and this is what we saw I mean I feel like hiding that or not sharing that seems not appropriate I see I see two areas there one I see is when they present something to us like that survey that was done I I have no problems with that that should go on for public consumption if they're coming to us with a draft of something they're going to present say We'll present at a regular meeting yep I don't think that should go on the website until they make their Corrections and present it to us at the regular meeting because it's not because it's not true it's you're going to be changing it Y and I agree with you that that uh I understand your point of view but if you're a constituent and you want to follow along for those who who are super like hey school board's my jam uh they want to follow along but they don't get to see the materials along the way and so maybe they would have different interpretation or maybe they would see something different they may have a feedback but until but if they don't get to see that until the end when Here's the final draft and so if they want to be involved in the process I guess I mean if we see a draft that's presented to us they are though they get to see it but those who are choosing not to be here can't see it and I guess I just I don't understand what the difference that is if we're going to tell everybody anything they'll see it well so I guess one question that I would have yeah it be hard to review that what it'll be hard to review after it just becomes more transparent that's all in the situation of a work session um like so this is a question for you Mr Bowman uh how far in advance do they have those presentations ready in terms of like the agenda going so candidly my experience with that is we're getting feedback up to an hour half hour before and we're making refinements I don't call them corrections to presentations uh and and I I my my because I've done it both ways um I think in the in the environment we're in transparency is super important the challenge you're going to run into is when uh you have social media Y and people will put things on social media this is what I saw and they'll change the context and then you run into that challenge which is fine as long as the board understands that's the the terrain we're operating on and that is more transparent uh no push back on that at all um you just have to be prepared for dealing with that gap of time between whatever's uh communicated here what would be communicated with those documents versus where we're at in the process which is it's not a big deal because it's in my opinion the more you're sharing with the public because we are a public education system probably the better and that we have done that in the past we did have it where we had posted people could follow along and see the materials but it was causing a lot of Comm confusion and misinformation because that they assumed that was what was going forward to the board meeting and then they didn't watch the board meeting to see what the final product was and we had confusion so that's why we ended up backing out of doing that knowing that the um final materials that were presented at the work session would be available at the board meeting so so again I am not opposed to I mean I'm okay with the materials not being shared on the agenda but I would be in favor of making sure that those artifacts Avail are available shortly after the meeting ends so that people can reference if they want to and now in my particular profession we use the word draft after the meeting or during the meeting or like preliminary dra like all yeah but so after the meeting or during the meeting well I would say after the meeting just because like you said if you guys have things that aren't ready to go right away but as soon as the minutes are available or or the uh the videoos uploaded or whatever may be then the artifacts ought to be U support oh they go back to listen to it they have something okay I mean we've done that yeah I think that sounds good all right and all right so uh number two uh I'm sorry s wait a second wait a second we were just talking but um are we I don't think that I mean again I don't think that needs to be written into the policy because I think I think it does because it that that it mandates that we are going to be transparent with our meetings well we have to be transparent with our meetings law m not putting the policy means that future borders can choose not to they can choose not to by talking about it in January when they cover this policy to remove that well then let's just do review the policy in January then well you should be reviewing it in January what this what this is is bringing this up to law or up to what what Minnesota school board is because they've made some changes like we said electronic communications yes and stuff but there's a difference between what's in policy and what your practices are and the practices everybody needs to understand and know what's in policy so they act according to the law the practices are talked about every January and early and even more often if needed on what you're all going to agree to to make sure you're all operating um within the same parameters so there difference between policy and practice I'll defer to the other board members I'm just sharing these are the additions that I would like to add if you would like to support that you can if you want to wait until January for the next board to review 205 to add those additions that's fine as well it's up to you guys so Judy what would be the difference of like I'm fine with it what would be the difference of number one um like that being in there versus something like that I'm sorry with with number one are you talking about underwritten materials okay yeah so that being part of the policy in terms of what the expectations are like how is that any different why is number one I'm not asking it to be no I know I know it oh this a copy of the printed materials included electronic communications so like we have the print we have the table that's always sitting by the door and all of the materials that we're covering that night there's one copy always printed out there for whoever comes to our community yeah I just mean how is that different than what Brian's saying you know in terms of what I'm saying is that any artifact that's shared no matter what I'm sorry I think you're because if this here how's it different well I'm saying number one is also technically a practice right correct well this this is what is well and honestly to that point this is exactly what you're saying we just don't do it on our work sessions uh for I mean we have the printed materials and this is saying including electronic communication so what what you're what Brian is asking this is to have it available for the people to come to our meetings but Brian is asking for the people that don't come to our meetings to have it up on the screen are up available right yeah and I think there are instances I feel like uh where we had Financial updates and they may not have been printed right and so again anything that we are seeing or reviewing during a working session uh to me feels that they're just supplemental artifacts that are part of the working session uh record after so they could yeah so that way they're getting to updated materials maybe this one can just be updated to include yeah I like that brain I agree I'll have to figure out how to do that but see this is in an open meeting a copy that's for here so we would just have to figure out how to add it for um y okay uh the next p one is on sessions closed by the Bureau of mediation services and so this one says all negotiation mediation service sessions and hearings between the Board of Education and its employees or their respective representatives are public meetings uh these me uh mediation sessions uh mediation meetings can be may be closed only by the commissioner of the Bureau of mediation services BMS and so I I don't know how we share this or don't or or or if we don't share this but because they are public meetings how do we communicate to the public that these are public and they can if they want to or do we not I don't know so all negotiations mediation sessions and hearings between the Board of Education and its employees or respective representatives are public meetings do we communicate them or do we not yeah I do think there's a notification we're required to put out for those I can't recall off top of my head what that method is um but but yes they are open I've had when I was in my previous role before I was a superintendent here uh I was on the negotiation team with Mr MOS and we had to post uh and we did have people coming and attend those those those sessions okay I think I think my experience from the from the last one there wasn't a lot of communication and maybe maybe there wasn't I neglected to see or didn't see you didn't see a whole lot of especially like where they were and I mean we highlight board meetings all the time and and I'm not saying that these meetings we need like everyone in the kitchen kitchen sink at them but I just want to make sure that there's transparency around these meetings also are available maybe it doesn't belong in here maybe it's a communication thing but it is something that um I want to make sure it's I think it's actually statuto required um as a heart of Minnesota statute I just can't quote you the statute right now on that or the but I can certainly make sure the whole board knows the answer to that in specificity and I apologize that I don't know that there's a lot of Statute so it's okay well yeah know I just know we've had different different uh negotiation sessions where there are public present y it's it's pretty rare but it has happened anything else but but wait if there's a if there's a statute though we we could find it and maybe State the statute in here that's what we should do yeah yeah okay okay um I do have one last one uh well I think yeah one last one uh it is seven seven uh under uh coaches coaches coaches and opportunity to respond so uh this one says the board of education has if the board of education has declined to renew the coaching contract of a licensed or non-licensed head varsity coach it must notify the coach within 14 days of that decision and then um if uh so the first question in that one I have is I'm I'm trying to understand because I don't know uh the contracts that licensed and non-licensed head varsity coaches receive but more importantly why is it just the head coaches uh and not anyone on the schedule C that is a lead for any of the activities from um you know um the chess team to the whatever team like like um I think Schedule C has over 50 different activity um uh leaders or coaches or advisers or whatever you want to call them and so I'm trying to better I'm trying to understand why why it calls out just the head varsity coach and no other activity person and do they are they not under contract e or does that make sense it does me I get what you're saying I get what you're saying but I'm trying to understand if a head varsity coach is viewed differently from a coach for Deca or a coach for debate and so you know what I mean well yeah I do know what you mean non or I guess it is licensed and non-licensed yeah it is licensed and non-licensed so this this is actually what's written in statute too contract are those under contract um I contract yes there's a bunch of them it's Schedule C contract yeah so it's a Schedule C contract all the debate all those are under contract yes in Schedule C when we pay him as typ in for high school and even all the way down to Elementary and so I'm not saying that it has to be just the varsity head coach I think I'm just getting Clarity around if we're going to give the varsity head coach this thing then do all the other coaches don't matter or do the other coaches like have a different rule or if I don't like the de debate coach or or or I let me rephrase that if the debate coach has has come to us and we have to make a decision uh they don't follow this rule you know what I mean so I don't know maybe you we have to look and ask uh any representative or any person placed uh through Schedule C activity pay follows this process this I mean the only thing I would say is this is a good msba question because this is specific policy in MSB like that's where it's like there must be a reason for well this is actually with the state statute I was just going to look that up but again State statutes is just at a high level but at the local level do we want it to be like I I don't know does does the Aeronautics team different from the basketball team so just to answer your question before we go any deeper with this one let me find out what the rationale is for it being worded the way it is and really who all that because does this mean even though it says head varsity coach we maybe call our Deca person a advisor but maybe they're considered coaches by the state or whatever let me let me call and get clarity on what this actually means might check with the 8S too they might have an idea of why it's that well I mean I don't know that they would know by well they would they would know if the head coach is treated differently on a different type of contract than an advisor and an assistant coach they would know that it was a good point that this is a route available for them but why not others yeah I mean if you're the bowling coach is that no different from the high school coach I mean I don't think I appreciate the bowling coach because they got they gave us two bowling students for our Bowl th awesome there you go uh and then I think the last one that I had was uh letter B within coaches uh it says if the coach requests the reasons for the non-renewal the Board of Education must give the coach the reasons in writing within 10 days of receiving the request uh the paragraph that or the sentence that I wasn't sure is it says the existence of parent complaints must not be the sole reason for the board board of education not to renew a coaching contract mhm and so I I don't want to like s the pot but it's like you've got sports that are uh there to support students and parents it's it's you know they're the one funding for their kids to play in these activities or participate in these activities uh I don't know if if that is if if that is State Statute if that is a best practice from mmba or like I haven't done enough coaching to to to say Hey you know can two parents complain or do I need more complaints than just parents and and one of the reason one of the reasons I share that is because what if parents have like do they have a feedback tool to say hey my son's experience wasn't good my daughter's experience wasn't good so the the net promoter score of that coach from its customers the students is poor and so while the record might be let's say 10 and zero but the culture is terrible cuz the students don't like it but the record is good uh I don't know and so do parents have a say or should they have a say just Mak we used to do the they still do the parent surveys the parent they every sport has a parent survey a student survey that goes to the ad the ad puts together the information needs for the coach y yeah the only thing I think can happen sometimes that would be a concern if if it didn't state that it's just some of the group think that can happen I would agree yep um and watch and there should be some protection for coaches in those kinds of circumstances and that's probably why that is well the sentence says the existence of parent complaints must not be the sole reason for the Board of Education not to renew a coaching contract and um and I don't know what the statistical analysis of whatever may be but there's a reason why parents are complaining and if there is a a a a a majority or a reasonable that number of complaints for whatever reason should that have Merit or should that warrant some sort of conversation and is that enough I'm just saying if I'm the ad and I'm not the ad but I'm probably W watching for a trend right because the group thing can happen within one season that gets really toxic right and so if you're the ad prob you wanting to look at is this a trend of complaints or is it the severity of the complaint in one within one season that might do something but the ad or other people can also voice their concern which would result in so I'm in alignment with that but when you say there's a trend if there's a trend of Parental complaints but if the existence of Parental complaints is not the only reason or is the only reason then you can't do anything about it I think that's a legal according to this document well it says if you see a trend of Parental complaints you can't do anything about it well but if that's happening there's probably also other things happen but I think what what I'm thinking about and and maybe this is the caveat to that um when I think of a situation like that it's going to be the students complaining not the parent should their should their should their but should their opinion value be valued Brian's saying if we've got if we've got a trend with parents complaining year after year this is saying that the ad or whoever can't do anything about that coach and I think what Carly is saying that um it would be the responsibility of the ad as whether it's one year or one parent or many parents to understand what the complaint is really about and what the root cause is and and there's more to it than just apparent complaining if they take the time to understand what the complaint is about it may just be a parent complaining but if a parent complains I would think that there's due diligence to understand what that complaint is and what the validity of is and that there's reasons behind the complaint so now it's not the parent complaint there's now a reason behind the complaint there there is probably a lot more and again I will acknowledge there probably is a lot more that I don't know about the ad process and the coaching process but as I read this letter this policy it says clearly the existence of parent complaints must not you don't like the restrictive I don't well but this was added from I mean this might be another I know I I wrote it down I I'm trying to search the statute why we do this but it's too hard to do that in talk this was something we added from the this came from the msba yeah but but the question is did msba add it or is it actually in statute statute and then the qu big question is why yeah my guess is there's a well if it's in statute then we don't have a choice but if it's not in stat statute then why I would guess there's statute based on a history of something like this yep where there probably yeah and you are right there's group think and you got players that hey my coach my son didn't play or my daughter didn't play and then you got a group of 10 that say and then there's now a trend but then if there's a trend you can't do anything about it and so but there and again this is probably for do the research on that one okay okay yep sounds like we have some questions okay and I I just clarify that um so you're going to check that statute but then we could revise this and then bring it back bring it back but do we need to bring it back to another work session or can we bring it yeah I think we yeah we do we do because I think we need to bring it back and um revise it but just also check legally to see if this stuff will fly yeah yeah okay and get some understanding on couple of these areas here I'll make sure I know you do okay sharing sorry all right so the next uh topic on our agenda is I think the topic of the hour which is the appointment process um I do have a few clarifying um points that I feel like we need to answer tonight with this um one of those will be uh the questions we never as a board discussed what questions we would ask if we're interviewing in person so we need to talk about um maybe not necessarily those questions but the process of how we're going to ask the questions and then how we're going to come up with the questions and then also I feel like to be fair and clear to whoever we end up interviewing later on or whatever um I think we need to be clear on um when we intend to put this uh this appointment or not the appointment but actually the election date because the person that's being appointed because of the amount of time left on the term also has to run again this in November well not necessarily in November but it has to run again to for the remainder of that term so there are several dates they don't have to though right they don't they don't they don't but I mean like if the board intends to do it like there are SE there are several dates that you can have hold a special election for and I'll read those and this is why this is important second Tuesday in February second Tuesday in April second Tuesday in May second Tuesday in August and First Tuesday after the first Monday in November so if the board says hey you know we want to run this special election in February I think any person that's interviewing for the appointment process they should know that right because then they're going to have to go into um you know if they if they're interested in running like how long they're going to be appointed and then when that election were to take place so those are just some questions that I have about this process the questions I want to be mindful that um there were board members that contacted me and asked if uh the questions could be confidential that's also something the the board um needs to consider uh do we share those questions in advance with uh the participant or do we um keep those questions confidential until uh the interview and then also I want to be mindful of the fact that if if for whatever reason the board votes to um not appoint the fourth vote getter that we have um I feel like it would only be fair to keep the questions the same if we go into um an appointment process so that it's that the questions are not geared specifically to one I mean because I it almost sounds discriminatory when I think about it like if we use different questions for a different person if they come in so those are just some questions that I have in my mind and just based on what you all have reached out to with um so anyway I'm opening the floor up for discussion on those topics start with the first one the dates is probably the easiest one to get sure um my thought is I would rather have the person run when there's a regular election going on rather than us having a special election because it's very expensive to have a special election for just the school board but we have we have Bond referendums discussions I know but I would pick one of those states that we're already having something but I think she makes a fair point we should pick it before the person interviews so do we have some dates that we know that we're going to no so wait wait a second she just those are those are by law the dates the only dates right that you can run right special elections anything but a levy referendum Levy referendums are only in November well unless it's a capital which well I mean an operating ly sorry yes and and so if we are going to have a discussion of about a bond referendum and those tend to run before November just because it unfolds better for bidding and building and all that kind of stuff um we'd have to know if the staff is ready to have conversations and if there's even an appetite for us to do that and I think that would be hard to dictate when that's going to be I get it I'm just looking at so so then You' want to take just wa I I go want to take the November one I want to go through the timeline here so that we're thinking about what we're doing to an individual here so we've just had an election and now this person whoever we choose is going to be appointed and then they have to turn around and run again in November if that's the date we choose so not even really a year between those terms and that's through the end of the term then which would be another year and then they have to turn around and run again right so that's three times in a row so I'm trying to think about how to be most fair to someone who is put in this situation um and also like maybe they don't want to run again in November that's fine maybe they are only interested in filling in for a short period of time I think it's very important that we determine what that date is so I don't I don't why I why understand your point of view I don't think that should matter the the these are the dates and these are the facts and these are the black and white you let that person that let them decide if they want to let them decide if they want to continue on the date is the date is the date and so it's not because like not because she just gave you a bunch of I just gave you a bunch of dates that could occur I in with because we're spending extra money that we don't need to if I'm the person that's being appointed and I come in to interview and I find out during the interview that the board intends to have the special election in February I might say eh I'll just wait for Fe deci to have it what did we commun we didn't communicate that's why I'm saying this is is a process that's not clear I um I think it's hard to determine because if we were going to do a bond that would not be in November so we're talking about November for a special election but it seems too premature to make a decision if we don't know if we're going to do a bond because then if we're going to do a bond we would want to pair those so that we're not spending extra money right so I appreciate what you're saying because I would want to know too but I don't think we can make a financial decision like that without more information 6,000 to do an election 65 60 60 and I believe Bill did share uh in a previous meeting that we will have to do another some sort of special election uh for a levy that needs to be renewed and and that was what November next November November you're right so we will be doing one no matter what at that time that's what I just said let's do November I didn't hear that I'm sorry do November then spoken louder I agree with that November yeah okay so that's the first one so then we know that we're that this person whoever we appoint will have to run again in November so are we saying we're not going no are we saying we're not going to do a bond referendum potentially in the spring that's not going to be our decision know is it because decision it's not going to be my decision why not but I I would say well wait a minute because if we're doing if we're running a bond referendum in the the spring I think statute requires us to have this person has to run so we can't decide we can't decide on when they get a run again until we have our bond and bond and Levy discussion so maybe the communication is that at this point in time um that election will occur in November unless the district decides to do a bond and then it will occur then it could be any one of those months so I mean those months are all open and if anybody's interested in this process I'm sure they're following us and are going to be aware but those are I don't know if you can do that can do why couldn't I mean to be able to say I mean because they have a certain term what does the application what does the resolution form say what is your question I guess I'm confus in what you're asking because let me see if they are going to be here until November and then and then we tell them what you can only be here until if we choose to do at a special election sometime in XYZ I well I gu so so statute is clear that when there's more than two years left on the term that we have to appoint we must appoint as soon as possible right so there's more than two years left on the turb until January so if we're appointing in this time then this is the process we have to follow there's an appointment and then there has to be an election and what you said is it'll be spring and it will be in the fall it'll either be in the spr and statute says that they have to be they have to then be an appointed appointment has to be elected at the next special election that the district would run but I believe a special election is voting for this POS voting for The the board seat but it is but is that is can you use special election for a bond referendum yes yes okay yes any special election that we if if um so only if it's not a general election or midye election could be it's a special election yep so it would be spring or fall so the date is not the easiest one no you were well I think still think is going to be the easiest one in my mind can you can we follow up with msba if that's if if that is what that is from it is that's D joke yeah and I also checked with the attorney on mhm okay all right date off communication on that is clear all right so then the next part that we need to discuss um is questions and how the board wants to handle that process for questions first so do you want the questions to be um shared with the individual before the interview or do you want to keep those questions confidential until the interview in the past we Pro we probably kept kept them confidential we did until the interview y I think they were shared like 15 minutes prior or half an hour prior or something like that I what I don't want to see is a prepared script like we did at the forums okay yeah you know I want I want the person to talk to me as a real person all right so questions will we kep confidential yeah so I think the concern that I have with that one is that if we're going to use the same questions for the next round then they won't be confidential and we're going to change questions for the next round of then you're not making it consistent with the application process you should not keep it confidential let it out and if they do compared if they come prepared in a script that is that person's decision to come come to the table with a script and now you may not like it and that's an opinion but that may give you to say hey like I don't like a person who comes with a script so if it's public it's consistent and it gives board members a chance to to prepare their answers if they want to what if they want to do research they what if they want to be more thoughtful of the answer that they want to put together uh but whatever we give this person we ought to be using the same for the application process so that it's consistent and then those people will have those questions ahead of time wait a second so we're start we're we're skipping to another process then no so so the process that we've agreed yeah the process that we've agreed to do do is to take the fourth largest folk at or take that individual and interview them to see if they're a fit for this board and this District right then if that doesn't move forward you're now talking about the next process which is the application interview process those questions could be the same could be different they need to be the same for all the individuals that we interview that for that process but they don't need to be the same for the individual we interviewed for this process cuz this process is a very specific person individual whatever that we're seeing if it's a fit for the board yeah so so but that candidate is so that candidate is no different from an applicant candidate because they've come to the table right uh we probably know more about that person than than the other applicants potentially but they're coming to the table uh the the they just have like I want to call it first dibs but like like how is that person any diff different from an applicant who would go through the through the through the interview process the questions ought to be the same I mean why would you be viewing this person differently than the other applicants that come through it's a different process it's a different process and I think we're talking about this process tonight I don't think in my opinion anybody should have access to questions ahead of time because one of you ever interviewed for a job and gotten the questions ahead of time like this is a this is a job interview they should be prepared for whatever and I think in the second situation you don't want everybody knowing what happened in the first round that's going to be repeated and I don't think we get I don't think it's but how this candidate different from the other ones because they do get first dips like you're saying and we could vote to appoint that person in which case they didn't have to compete against anybody aside from the election so I don't think it's I don't think we Face any discrimination if we have this process and potentially we have a second process where we treat all of those candidates the same these are different two different situations it's two different situations but I want to be very very very mindful that it feels like we're holding someone to a different standard than everyone else yes we are and they're because they're being appointed to the exact same role so how should why why are we giving them different questions well what if we have the same number of questions but it's not the same questions well does it even matter process we going to just appoint the fourth person anyways will you are you committing to are you going to be able to vote Yes Terry let's let's keep it on topic here with what we're talking about because calling out I'm just asking not helpful well it doesn't matter even all right that's fine what I'm saying is that the person is applying for the person that we are appointing for the vacancy right is it's it's the same position so why would we why would we interview someone with different questions and then if we don't like that candidate ask a different set of questions for for the for different candidates all applying for the exact same position there there can we decide that that's not treating the second group the same as the first person that's where I actually feel like we would face potential discrimination is the first person could say the second group of people knew all the questions that's more discriminatory than saying okay here we can say for each candidate we're going to give each board member gets one I don't know one as long as we approach the situation in the same way the questions themselves can be different if we have different pools but if you have five candidates in the second round the fifth person is going to know the questions ahead of time so I'm just thinking about this necessarily from an HR standpoint and when we interview someone for a job and it's the same job it's the same questions every time okay no it's not it is it is legally it is I can't I can't say if I have a job and I'm interviewing this teacher for a special ed job and I ask one candidate questions one two three and four and the next person comes in and I only asking that's when you're doing like when I interviewed for team members when I was doing my interviews I did ask them all the same questions but right now we're talking about this process we have one individual interviewing and so the fact the question is do we want the question to be confidential for this one interview that we're going to be doing on the night of the 19th and I I believe we should have them be confidential just because it is it is I I mean we've never really had our candidates giving the candidates um the questions ahead of time to be prepared and I don't think we need to the I'm sure they're comfortable after going through a campaign and stuff you're pretty comfortable being able to address the question questions so have just a couple thoughts one um we know the fourth person because we saw the for you you you know that person you could have five people you had don't absolutely know nothing about that apply for that position if we go to the appointment process that's got to be different questions y cuz I'm not going to ask the questions of the fourth candidate so so let me ask you if you are an HR recruiter and you you were referred some someone referred sorry you knew the candidate that was coming in and and and you asked them questions are you telling me that the other candidates that you may not know you're going to ask them different question no that's a totally different thing it's a different process a different process all together this would be like doing a this would be like posting a job you didn't find your right candidate and you post it again and you you no one says you have to in post one and post two follow the same exact question wait I'm sorry go ahead yes there is no there is no situation like that where if you go through post one and say nope it's not our person nothing says you have to do it the same so in my profession we have to then validate why the first candidate didn't get the job by by by looking at the metrics and comparing that to the second pool of candidates and so my point of view is then keep the questions consistent for whatever process because it's for the exact same job that everyone's applying for because if you have different questions or you have different metrics how do you compare that your justification of not approving the first person is relevant or is valid you know you're not you're you're giving them two different scenarios that process is over with and you're starting a new process a new different process so so my point of view then I'll leave it as that is that I think the question should not be confidential should be forward how the candidate chooses to respond to them is at that person's discretion and and then then all the questions are out there that's no different from the questions that we have here on this form it is because the questions on this form is is provided to the candidates ahead of time and these are the questions that you use and what I'm showing is the application form for any for a vacancy appointment that was used up at the last time those aren't the questions for the interview but but these are the questions that you use to screen candidates so you made it consistent and fair to screen the candidates and then we had another then we had another set of questions that was confidential that they did not know about that we used to interview them for the ones that made it through the application process that's a different process that's not what we're talking about tonight so I want to be clear the reason that I brought this up is because I'm always concerned about the district's legal viability and making sure that we are doing things legal and fair that's the reason I brought it up I'm not trying to get into a big argument I just think it's important to have this discussion to make sure that um we are considering those types of scenarios David is an attorney and he has some thoughts on that process I you do can you please share well I I I agree I agree with Carly and and Brian a little bit but I think that they we should let the question they shouldn't have the questions because that's not what a job interview is um using the same questions they're going to the second group is going to know what the questions are and that doesn't seem fair to the gives an advantage correct gives them an advantage so then I think we you know that that's not fair to Brett and um so you know I think then we would need to come up with some so we're talking about a process that we don't even know we're going to have yeah that's true I was say we just we're talking about tonight's process which is how are we going to interview that handle the interview and then if we go to the next process we can have that conversation and light of what kind of L they are kind of linked because that was our that's our that's our secondy plan if and I want to make sure that there's no legal liability linked if we use different questions if we get to that like I just's there's no this is why just asking everybody's allow being fair being fair and it's more of a fairness type of issue I I appreciate in terms of just thinking this through but it seems like what you're saying it's been answered yes that's okay we on to the next one now so we good everybody's good with confiden and going back to the date thing I was just thinking about the date thing well I'm looking for majority we if we set the date if we set the date in this at the bond or the spring election the new board could change it so it doesn't really matter change what what what happens what what when the special election is no they can't I mean if we're having a special election in the spring for a bond we have to the person has that right but there's four different dates of when we so so us setting a specific date doesn't really matter oh no it doesn't Okay so that aside our we agreeing majority wise that the the question should be confidential yes yes yes yes yes no no all right so the questions are confidential so then um my thought process around this is each board member should send the chair two questions I will gather them all together um if there's any that are the same I'll kind of let give you those out and and let you know if they're different and then when we have our working session I will give every board member the copy of the questions how many questions should we ask candidate because at the last U appointment process I think it was a total of five okay I just threw two out there like I said this is a discussion well but you're saying two because in case there's any overlap or repetition correct which probably or like one question and a followup is there is there going to be a limited on the number of questions I think that's fair yes like are we going to do five so I think you did five at the last one that's just I'm just saying well because we were doing multiple candidates and and and there were candidates that you didn't know correct and so my recommendation is that everybody now we know this candidate my recommendation is that you just each board member has two questions I mean there's six of us that's 12 questions that's going to take some time but then we'll also so my recommendation is that we each come to the study the set the study session before we do the interviewing and we bring our questions and we discuss them and how what flow we want to go with them and then like Brian asked his and then Carly and then Terry and then Dave and then Kim and then me and then we go around that same process so we make sure that the questions flow the way we want them to flow I think that that could cause a lot of I think we that's what we did the last time it we haven't ever done this process before I think we should do I think we should send the questions I think we should send the questions to Kim vets and then we then we can have kind of have some order so we have done the interview process yes we haven't really done it this week well we've done the interview process and so I think we really haven't done it this week so and I think that gives us a good opportunity to make sure that we feel that maybe some of them knowing what each board member wants to draw out from their two questions then can maybe help decide whether or not um you know some of those questions should be combined and then are we going to allow for any follow-up questions I don't I just think 12 I think 12 questions is I think 12 questions is a lot I think because you guys did five last time and we should be consistent um I don't think followup is necessary want us to do one each then I think we should do one each with no followup because that's what you guys did last time um and and then we just vote Yes callid day hold on cuz one thing we're talking about is consistency follow up might help you can clarify like you're tring might help them more but guys like like we're if we're going to do this the same process has to occur with the next applicants like it's it's for the exact same position no it's for tell people asked me follow-up questions and I was part of the appointment process battle never mind I feel like there were followup questions in my I think there were Clarity it was it wasn't what we did allow was questions of clarity not followup okay I think that's fair I think if we're considering two potential processes it makes sense to have the same number of questions and the opportunity for followup within those it's not follow up as much as clarity as what we did Clarity y Clarity so did you do Clarity at the last one yeah they asked me it like I I remember that she answered something and I don't remember what it was but we did a few just clarify a little bit more what you mean or something to make sure we understood what they me yeah it was clarifying an answer rather than clarifying the question that we gave that yes but I think we should set a limit on the number because I just be question per person so what kind of questions can we ask and who gets to decide what those questions are that's what I'm saying we should each come to the board the next board meeting before the actual interview and take time to sit down and understand what each of our questions are and see if they're overlapping or duplicating and if they are then we can tweak them to make sure that they're not the same I don't have an issue with that process I guess my only concern is I'm only allotted for a half an hour between like when we start and when the interview candidate comes in and just going with how we discuss things I don't know if we have enough time I don't like that what do you mean I think time is going to be I don't know past experience I'm okay sending my questions I'm okay sending questions to to to Kim and have if there's two that are similar or if there's two that are the same I will let the individual know okay I mean because you can end up with five questions that are exactly the same right and you can say well you know combine it this way y or you could have very similar and you could just combine one question that way that way we can give you more questions I think I mean we should trust her a little bit I'm not going to share I promise so then what I'm hearing is that every board member has the autonomy to create their own question and they have to send it to me and and then there is no approval other than as long as it's not a duplicate from somebody else when would you like those by well um it'd be nice to have them by Friday that should be easy that doesn't give you a whole lot of time but you guys I do think it's important that the questions that each of the board members ask is going to help us just because I get one question I'd like to know kind of what the other board members are to make sure that we're understanding if it's going to get us to being able to make a decision me made your decision we'll be able to share off to Brian why you bring that just want to make sure that the community information I'm sorry Brian I can't hear what she saying um we'll be able to share those questions just like you stated like a half an hour before oh so that's what we'll be doing then yes yeah and if so you're still gonna do that half hour before absolutely and I don't think you just share what the questions are I don't think you need to show the names of them you no I'll just let people know if they're duplicates and then when we have the work session then we'll do well we're going to probably want to read our own question having our names attached you can't can't be afraid to have your name attached to your question no I just think I I just don't want a bunch of chaos to happen so who's going to read the questions are we each I you're each going to read own question yeah yeah that's the way that we did it last yeah okay can we just clarify also what happened in our last meeting in terms of the consensus that were the 51 vote that we came to correct yes um so I did answer emails today and I did share that process with community members that that had reached out the process that the board decided on um with a 51 vote was that the board would bring in the fourth vote getter we would go through an interview process and and then the board would vote on that candidate to determine whether they felt like they were someone that would as JY stated work work well with the board and and be a good board member the only other thing I want also add with the contingency that if the board voted no and that person did not move forward then the contingency plan was then it would go through an application process okay and I did want to bring one other thing up but I can wait till after you're go for it I'm done we did receive some emails that I think we should probably I we should probably at least put this on the table that really the fourth vote getter in terms of the statute is not really determined um it's 21 vote difference out of 10,000 some um well 81,000 total votes and Statute in this case where someone is elected versus not would be a recount but we can't do that right and so some of our constituents have suggested we interview the fourth and fifth great um I will share what what um what the board has had discussed this process before if the vote if the votes were close um that was something we discussed during I think October 22nd Work session um and basically we said I I remember you and I basically having it back and forth about I I get I'm getting confused between an election and an appointment process because we've kind of taken both and combined them in an election you're correct like if there's that many uh if the the the tally count is that close and there is a recount and this process um it doesn't really it's not an election it's an appointment process so we only agreed on number four um at this time I would say that that would be changing our process with what the board agreed to and I think we should stick to the process the board agreed to but again I'm just one person um the rest of you the rest of you can comment on that and I I listened back just cuz I was there were so many things that flew around in the and it wasn't the 1022 meeting it was the earlier one where we kind of like talked about a lot of the what ifs maybe it was the 10 it it was the E I don't know I remember sitting over here and and saying directly to Judy like I I it's hard to separate an election from an appointment because we've taken this and so we have to keep the election rules election and the appointment rules appointment because technically the public didn't vote for four people so that's where I'm stuck right you could wait to you could wait wait to C until the certification if there is a recount there won't be because it's well it would cost us money right and actually it doesn't cost us money well but we can actually but this is an actual recount the only ones who can request a recount under the circumstances that we currently operate are the individuals who were there and they have to pay for it which is not the condition that that we are in right now I'm just putting this out there as something like is this potentially any legal consequence and Dave you might know it's so rare it's so rare I don't I don't think you can find a case so from my understanding you know a recount is generally for those that are actually elected well one another one one two one two and three or the one and two the one two and and and the rec would be between three and no the recount would between three and four three and four right but between it's not against about two different people that didn't get elected it's about one who got elected and one who is very close and didn't get elected I think the the fourth get vot getter was uh a thousand votes away so I don't think that that a recount would be able that's not recount I'm just saying that in this situation is there like people have brought up the statute it's obviously not the same situation because it's the fourth and the fifth but people have propos that so I wanted to make sure we're acknowledging people have emailed a lot about a lot of things but that was something that came up from several people legally it doesn't hold any weight in this process any other comments on that thoughts no there there's a bunch of emails and I'll I'll I'll I'll pause here and defer to others to weigh in on any other emails that we received but if not then it's up to we're just interviewing the forth right is that what we're saying M then you've got mean I of the board is on the line as well I understand their their position and their thoughts on that and you know initially when I saw how close was two one oh boy that's going to be you know something for us to discuss as well I think sure B actually shared that on 10 one about the please don't interrupt I'm sorry jeez I know great um but I think I think what we have to be true to is we had a process in place we agreed to it then we agreed to change that process and this is a process we're discussing tonight and so um I think to protect the Integrity of the process that we agreed to discuss tonight um um although I respect and get their understanding where they're at I think we should not do that um I think it's worth a discussion though but um I think then after this the backup to this process we agreed to was the application in interview process at which time everybody has the opportunity to be able to be a part of that if we get to the backup plan of this process corre and I did share I think there were two former board members that uh said that they would be willing to serve as well so when we have that disc even part of the that's another process we haven't even discussed so we've been we've been agreeing two different processes and this is where we're at today with this interviewing of as the fourth candidate Terry you haven't commented on it on what Carly brought to the table is do you have thoughts I think I agree with the majority on that one I I I think uh changing the rules again is not is not um the right thing to do I understand why they want and why they're asking think it's a fair ask kind of like a would have could have should have thing I mean it wouldn't have come up it would if it wasn't that close you know what I'm saying yeah which is something we discuss we're but I just want to make sure that everybody's really clear that the first process that we'd agreed to is not the process we're talking about today correct so Dave than just fourth yep and just to make sure I'm clear that after the interview each board member will decide yes or no for the candidate correct the vote will be taken after the interview okay so just to clarify because this is the last item on the agenda and I want to make sure that I have all the information correct um we will uh bring in the fourth vote getter next week on Tuesday to do the interview process that meeting will start at 7:00 but the person will not show up and just to be clear it's the 19 18 cuz that one email said the 18th and who is the fourth V at I I don't think we shared that right Nicholson okay um we and we've already reached out to him too but um so that person will come in for the interview uh the questions will be kept confidential each board member will submit one question in advance to the chair those questions will be discussed at 7 o'cl during uh the working session part of our special session until the person arrives at 7:30 which in case we will interview at that time um after the interview is complete each board member gets to ask their one question and have a clarifying question um and then the board will vote on that person to determine if they will be appointed um we will also share with with Mr Nicholson that um the election for that seat will take place in November uh barring any changes that happen in the spring if the district decides to go into a special election then again that election will happen in the spring instead of ever does that sound correct yes okay all right just making sure that we're all clear on that um other than that I have uh no additional items on the agenda for tonight um so then we are we are adjourned for the nth and thank you and have a wonderful great thank you e