good evening we'll call the meeting to order can we please rise for the price of the flag begin can i say something that just bugs the tar out of me yes you may i would invite us to actually think about the words of the pledge of allegiance when we say the next time rather than chant them because we keep putting breaks in places that make absolutely no sense well we are going to do i think what we did last time is that right now we have one in the one hundred student trips all the rest are in the three hundred so if anyone has a particular item that they would like to speak about first let's just go at it and then if some so that we don't have to call each and every one at the end we'll just have reached them  have something about three one twenty one to us from ours discussions yes ok go three and do do you do the one at the last ok that's fine with me what what's the is that the only thing on three hundred zero zero ok does anyone house have anything on three hundred ok and is there any public comment on three hundred k you are ok ok is that ok any other comments on three zero two and any comments from the floor ok ok forgot to turn on my mike up through four point one i understand the concept behind it i find it distressing because at the very bottom it says if you get a promotion in place now partizan can occur just fine thank you very much and which number is that for a number for so if it's ok if your person gets a promotion then why is it not ok for them to come in in that situation it either is or it well i think what that so it says nothing here and contains shall affect any person already employed in the district if a person related to them is subsequently elected to the board or appointed to an in ministry of or supervisory positions if you subsequently get a promotion nepotism is fine if you so say somebody is already an employee right and someone related to them is elected to the board now that's ok that's actually not as interesting to me as the situation in which one because we have it right now two spouses who teach one of them goes to graduate school gets a doctorate gets promoted to assistant principal that's not the other teacher can continue to teach not a big deal so why is that ever a big deal but maybe i would number four i think is saying that if you if the person is already here and in relative becomes like on the board that it's a wash or or if somebody is are in a position in a spouse becomes a becomes appointed to an administrative position or becomes a principal that's probably the most likely scenario of the cross month and it's one that could occur in our current circumstances we have married teachers don't have it not a problem but if one of them goes to school gets whatever they need becomes an assistant principal that's fine under number four now if it's fine under number fo why is it not fine otherwise c n i think when i first read it i was thinking that they couldn't be newly employed as side what you're saying is this would apply the language as it's written would apply to your already floyd and then there's the promote if it's ok when you're already employed what difference does it make if you're a new employee because i think then you're already employed when i looked at this i thought it was just with respect to your new employment so that you as a board member would have a lot of pool maybe or leeway to get a person a relative hired in the district and this prevents this but you're saying it i know that the board first of all i hope that the public is sufficiently intelligent not to elect as a board member someone who has those of immediate family members working for the district that would just be add it with exercise i'm far more interested in what happens in the internal operations of the district and i come back to if it's ok after the fact why is it not ok before the situation i could think of is because it is a supervisory position our administrators hire and if it's going back around firing if you're in a position to make a decision to hire a teacher that's where there can be some issue but if you knew there was already a teacher teachers here for ten years and then a spouse gets promoted they have no say over whether or not you are hired however i would hope that if the situation arose we have a vacancy coming up due to retirement one of the foreign languages i forget spanish maybe french ok french the best ever french teacher comes along but her husband happens to be  we would not hire her because her and i think this is only a board member or administrative or supervise reapers i think it's a stupid policy and i certainly think the definition of nepotism is way too broad my niece or my sister in laws really but anyway that's my opinion i'm just throwing up and so do you have so you would not like to have it at all like what would be something our army recommended on a language change i'm recommending that we not have an official policy i would assume i would rely upon the professionalism of our employees that if a and a let's say because i can't think of anybody else christian less nets wife applies for a job that if christian was in a position where he would be on the evaluative committee either he would have the good sense to recuse himself or you would have the good sense to recuse him and he wouldn't participate in the evaluation and i would like to think that our professionals are professional enough that without scratching was nuts wife would not be a factor in the in the decision either she's good for it or she's not i think this harkens back to one nine hundred fifty where if you get married you have to quit working i mean it's just like bizarre but still completely out there in every other again that's a reason this is here to set peter's apart these other districts where people run for the board to get somebody there is some validity to that and also with the way the supervisor spread out i think there's ways it could be conformed as opposed to the ultimate hiring which now there are certainly people message that you can't pull this stunt right now you can't pull this stunt i would be a i would be amenable to that i would be fine with that so in order to accomplish that i'm looking at the first paragraph would striking in that third line and ministry of and supervisory person now if we struck that it would read that the recommendation and subsequent appointment of persons related to board members may create a conflict then the other place i see is number two when you get down to number two it says no person may be employed in the school district at the person is related to a current district employee acting in administrative or supervisory come out all together ok and then now would be something that the board would have to weigh is that are you overseeing this and how do your qualifications far outweigh does everyone else agree with those changes ok so what i'll do too because i do know just i've had a discussion about this policy not in relationship to this meaning but with another board member beforehand so i would expect i will make sure that i notify all the board members that are in attendance that this was a substantive change and we i anticipate that it might based on the in our conversations it might come up in a first read discussion and that's where i i think it's perfectly fine because i agree with you that this these are acceptable changes are there any other comments and are there any comments from the floor from the audience ok ok so that's three or four point one three or four point two no ok why this was actually recommended by our solicitor it was not recommended by p s p a way to ensure that we give proper credit tell me if i'm wrong proper credit to  new employees coming into the district so that you don't run into any discriminatory hiring practices i understood what the concept was intended to be i didn't think the words got us there the first sentence for example says the for some classes of employee advanced placement is mandatory i think what when we discuss this at the agenda meaning it's anticipated that they're if you recall the solicitor created forms and procedures that they were going to be added as a r s to this policy so that this broad statement would be supported by a strong and ministry of regulation  understand how critical that has and i suspected that was what the purpose of this policy was but then after we have that very assertive statement then we go on to say and it may be necessary to recruit effective teachers as opposed to recruiting ineffective teachers but that's another issue i just i thought i didn't have a problem with number two at all i didn't have a problem with number three i thought the statement in number one was just weird it really classes of employees or is it for the experience of some employees or classes of employees to me refers to like all of these are all of those yes so some  placement does anybody else have stop so the answer to this is we have professional employees who do not have step placement yet and we are working to rectify that oh ok well then that is it becomes a correct statement yes and i think it was intention you know we are going to be we're going to be working we're going to be working to rectify there are certain classes of our professional employees who do not have a salary schedule or step placement all right well then i will i will be ok with that we have school building check out requirements they must turn in all their whatevers and what if they don't you call the solicitor when you've been with you can attempt to withhold pay you can attempt to do other or we'd have to find things that we could do ok i just i was surprised that we articulated that they had to and then didn't say what happened if they didn't exactly and we do actually do exit interviews ok that was all ok any other comments on three o eight point one and any comments from the audience next three eleven and get that high up don't let me take you out of order run or oh yes if anybody has one in between there this works really well with respect to furloughs why would there be a suspension that was not disciplinary how what is is i know what it is in the in the private sector a suspension is like a disciplinary action without pay for being naughty though i don't believe that's what's contemplated here and if it is this policy's terribly wrong if we're talking about cutbacks which is what i understand a furlong to be or a furlough or however you choose to play what did you belonged here unless i misunderstood what a suspension and i don't know if the school code refers to it might just be the reference in the school and that's entirely possible that's why i asked when they should  i don't think this would be four or six or eleven zero six i think this we have five twenty four eleven twenty four causes for suspension is eleven twenty four and what is it is a disciplinary  difference between us why do we need two words it says any board of directors may suspend the necessary number of professional employees for any of the causes and really it's it's none of which is disciplinary at that you know i was bemused by the fact that professional employees get evaluated once a year but temporary professionals get involved evaluated twice a year just thought that was odd first year well if they're here for three years they're not exactly temporary as yet so it's not that they're temporary  perhaps it would be helpful to alter the language or add to the language ok yes ok the board did you did you have a copy on everyone or no they wanted on the fourth paragraph to remove the term provided by the district after tuberculosis exam because employees who have to have the tb examination actually pay for it themselves or get in the mix and that was the proposed change the question had to do with somewhere it says religious exemption yes right before number four a signed statement that a medical examination is contrary to his or her religious beliefs  as such a thing ever happened i'm not aware not the reason that i stab the story i do know that it is ok i could understand if the employee or potential employee said i want to be examined by someone of the same gender i would have no issue without an eye i wondered if we should acknowledge that option in here there are lots of people who don't want to be checked out by someone it came up in the student policy  m m m r two came when they realized that the measles mumps rubella but you need to two shots in the past you only needed one and they realized that you needed a booster for it to become effective school employees were not required to get that second m m r even th is it is interesting because probably you know we have an entire policy on that and it's been in the news quite a bit with the breakout of moms send why can you do if you have you know the end in faction and can you exclude this student is just right but i have not seen anything or any cases coming across in that situation where you're talking about teachers and i wonder if there's just no statute on it is what i'm guessing i can't imagine you could ever lose a lawsuit by teaching the standards for teachers that you maintain for your students and check with  so maybe check with the solicitor to see if anybody has she seen any policies and we could do the same with p s or in consultation with the solicitor needs to go to the end of the sentence because the information is not consulting with the solicitor that's all for that one ok and he other comments on three fourteen point one and any comments from the audience  ok next three fifteen ok i actually have a concern with the new language about camera phones ok we've actually received a couple of messages so far this year about incidents vehicle accidents  and it would seem to me that that would be a non educational reason but would absolutely be something we would want to district employee to be using their cell their camera phone for you mean if they and ok can you explain that they're riding in a bus and and the bus gets they are not taking pictures for educational purposes but we would certainly want them to be we would actually want them to take pictures of the accident of who was there and what were you know what was the light like and all those happy things  so i just wondered if not educational was actually the right wording and if unrelated to the workplace actually wasn't the correct w and why did do you remember the conversations when we removed unrelated to the workplace we felt it was too broad or maybe that there had been some use of cell phones currently that you wanted to limit but i can't remember a specific discussion the way so in that situation i don't know that it would be that we would read that the reading of the this would read to preclude that because if we would say that they're taking pictures for an accident we would say is that personal no is it not education oh yes so they would be ok on the because there's a war that's not personal prohibits employees use of cameras for non educational she wears an r you saying that if you take out for purse for if you take out the word personal or school district prohibits employees use of cameras for non educational reasons and my point is i'm not sure we actually want to say th the education here i see it in that's why i think the old language was actually better and this they said was you know a principal at a building wondering if they had a particular incident that they were trying to curb because that claim from them i wouldn't be surprised in the just as particular as mine for und but i just wanted to raise that as as a question did we really actually mean to do that and i understand that and i'm wondering just throwing out the statement would the possibility of that happening and being more remote then maybe what's trying to language is trying to hinder so maybe leaving it in what it is doing accident wondering if we just as the school district permits employees use of cameras for personal or non district related reasons that would make sense that would work we've reasons does anyone have any opposition to that change anyone was that your only comment y ok and any other comments and are there any comments from the audience yes good evening roll for a vote of the nation in the same sentence is the word personal necessary but more importantly why is the word district at the end of that section not crossed out was a search and replace his remains thank you for catching that i think you can't you need well you're saying if it's the school district prohibits employees use of cameras for non school district related reasons  and i think that would cover it i do think that there's probably a benefit to having the word there even if it is redundant you know it actually was floating freely in space it wasn't attached to anything no no personal he's talking about really having personnel he was talking about moving removing personal even though it might be redundant i personally would like to keep that in just because everybody knows what is being prohibited and that's the personal use of the cell phone but i agree with you it probably is subsumed in non district the employee to report to their immediate supervisor and statistically it's quite likely that the immediate supervisor is actually part of the problem statistically not anecdotally anecdotally statistically it's quite likely that the supervisor is part of the problem and to require a fearful employee to report to the supervisor is not a good idea that is the chain of command i mean you  to circumvent that one supervisor he is going to create a habit of people going past your supervisor to go talk to the superintendent if they want to well i would not just i would not take out the supervisor part but i would allow for an exception that if the supervisor is the problem th you have somewhere else to go because this currently requires that they go to the supervisor you know that's and it seems like it requires them to go to the supervisor and the superintendent at the same time you know or chaining asli have to do both i don't think it has to be in a sentence if any employee observed workplace violence or believes they are the subject of or under the threat of workplace violence they are to immediately report their observations and concerns to their immediate supervisor or if the if the source of the workplace violence or how or in the event of an event right if the supervisor is the subject of the complaint but i think it then the employee may report or need only report to the superintendent yeah that  designee good job ok is everyone ok with that proposed change that's good and any other comments and any comments from the audience ok are going quickly and you know what i think they come out with better policies so i thank you for taking the time to read them and bring them up three eighteen yes at the bottom of page one one of the new sentences does not belong in this policy and which of course is right reserves the right to require special medical exam for any school employee at any time has nothing whatever to do with attendance you want to put it in the medical policy or the examination policy that we win over a few  that would be fine i don't think it belongs here at all i think this came from the fact that it was in the prior policy and i think it relates to the fact that if an employee says they were sick because i have x illness that the district can make you go to your doctor and get an exam in bring where you know already and if you already have builtin already and either in this policy or another policy the fact that they may you may require them to bring a letter from their doctor  and really i think it came from i mean you're already requiring them to provide certification but i think this is the key is it's a special medical exam if they have frequent karloff and absenteeism  tarney we could request that we believe that there's some other issue around that tardiness and carlos require them to seek special needs some kind of modifier or it needs to go back in three fourteen like where history establishes a pattern of repeated absence whatever i just i and i you can disagree with me that's ok well i think if you limit yourself to the history of you know repeated absenteeism i think it may restrict the application and i kind of thought that because it was in the attendance policy i would agree to add some clarifying language but maybe maybe we could get something a little broader  i kind of thought that covered it i'm wondering where this came from  and that was in addition to that as making an additional clause to the previous paragraph may result in discipline up to and including term a nation and may result in a requirement for a special medical exam i'd be ok with that that makes it clear that it's tied into attendance otherwise it would just like opt in the requirement by the district of a special medicare for a special medical exam ok is everyone ok with that proposed change and any comment from the audience ok three ninety three ninety ok this is a this is a two had advanced or and it doesn't act like a two headed monster he refers to conflicts of interest in two different ways as both risk resulting in personal peculiar again but then there's a whole there are two or three references to charitable solicitation and when you're doing a charitable solicitation you're not resulting in personal peculiar again so either it's a conflict of interest in general because your interests are no longer aligned with the districts or it's only a conflict of interest resulting in a peculiar again the way this is worded and set up it's its it hits itself ok now the definition of conflict of interest do you have a problem with that because i don't see that at cern a little thing in their charitable shows up in number twelve and if if the definition i stays as it is then charitable should not number twelve shouldn't be there it would be my recommendation that we take another look at this policy and redo it so it includes because my first comment before i ever got down to that number twelve was not just  so i would suggest that this policy needs to be reworked to accommodate to recognise the fact we're talking about two different kinds of conflict of interest well now we're talking about one the person's interests no longer align with the districts definition does that help for that purpose should be removed arsenal benefit some people don't get it so i think it's to be in there but i really do think the whole policy needs to be considered carefully from that standpoint it's doing two things at once and it doesn't realize it prime well would that be a private benefit then would twelve is that the only other place that the charitable items come up i just want to say because i'm i'm hesitant to you know my position is i'm hesitant to remove all of this and say let's do it later i want rather i don't know i guess i might write my personal recommendation would be that we strip out anything that is a personal peculiar game and keep it focused because we have an on solicitation policy elsewhere i don't think we really need to address that here if we keep it on personal kinnear again that is only doing one thing and that's fine i'm ok with that but number twelve at the very least gets it into this hybridizing thing it doesn't work anymore and that's the only place that's the only issue that you have like the major issue that you have with respect to this paragraph twelve actually let me take a quick look at it and  think about that because i didn't look at it from the perspective  number two number two gets weird mentions another agency yeah that goes beyond private aga was at the one you said you know two i think i would take agency organization you guys tell me agency and organization are just agency  because you're saying business refers to a for profit business  agency but i'm wondering if there's or have her government and i just don't know enough about the situations that have occurred and that's the only reason it makes me nervous about removing agency or organization because wood something i'm trying to think of every possibility that exists and to say with some that you want to limit something that's more than just a business which is why i'm saying maybe we need organization in it just to gauge it yet because agency as a term of art is an arm of the public but i'm wondering in that situation and again i'm wondering are there any like just saying with say charter schools where you hear about people who are in charge of charter schools and they're not profit but they create this other business but that would be then a business is also just us right right but it could be us because there could be a charter school i mean we just don't have you know anyone applied to have it where they were employed by the charter i mean i don't know if there's any i can't think of any agency do you have any opposition to  like an educational agency maybe or something physical therapists like named or people who want to provide educational services to their students and they can tell where our students are not have people that privately own the what's that  so that would definitely be an organization agency maybe leave organization and type a leave organization in it i can i can that works for me that works for everybody else who would consider another school district that would be a public entity but how would one of our him do we have employees working for two districts oh cool around about how about this would be a pride we say insanity and but that would be a problem under the private peculiar again if they're being a paid by another excuse me for interrupting if they're being paid by the other district than they are achieving private kinnear again and that is a conflict of interest why couldn't we do this since we're just talking about the word agency why don't we have it as a proposal to strike it but first before it comes to first read it will just pass it by the solicitor to say i mean it's not really doing any damage to it if anything if you consider another school district or municipality an agency it protects you in that regard and i was the i can be fine with that too you know as long as we have twelve twelve was the one that was really given me or care ok why don't we save the money and leave agency and my next one is three twenty four three twenty four and sandy what we what we decided to do is if you had something in between that that you wanted to talk about just speak up and say oh i have something for three twenty three ok three do they have more than one file in your employee no you can aisles used a i see what you mean home now and then third but their own file so it's still needs to be there is such a thing as highly qualified and that's defined by federal law and we can't hire a teacher who is less than highly qualified we don't but there are instances where a substitute or someone would be in a position that they aren't highly qualified to teach or just qualified well they have a certification but it may not necessarily be for biology or chemistry could be physics that's what it gets another term of art twenty eight two missing dash is really using ok and where are the paragraph second line meet and discuss should be hyphenated that's all for that one ok any other comments ok moving on you're waiting for three thirty this phone i'm sorry i'm going to suggest that you send this back to our solicitor because i think there are some things here that are not correct  in the bottom two paragraphs on the first  page i believe there are some items in the paid and unpaid paragraph that actually are required to be counted as time worked and under in the final paragraph there have been some cases recently time so before we put those in a policy i want to double check and make absolutely certain that we are permitted to do those things ok so whether it could be counted towards and the use of comp time right so what we could do there is pass that by the solicitor and then come up at the first read if there's any particular changes well there's been some recent case law too that may have changed what was ok before now if just just so that you know how we go through these al o how we go through these is usually if there is a statutory change in our case law change p s be has a policy news network so we would get an update so what some of these policies were given to was in july of two thousand and thirteen so what we have to do and what we have been doing as a committee is going back and making sure looking at all the policy news networks that have been created since two thousand and thirteen which there are significant number but we always do check to ensure that there wasn't a substantive change since they wrote it in much the same way that  conferences or trips or conferences exceeding three hundred dollars in cost excluding substitute expense require prior board approval i just want to ask is that different from practice is that what we're doing now because we seem to approve a whole lot of professional conferences not all of which are overnight or involve more than three hundred  dollars my knowledge of this is that this is what we're doing i don't think we're catching any more of that that's fine i just didn't know and then yeah it was in the prior oh it wasn't ok and then i didn't see anything here in here and maybe it doesn't matter about how expenses are reimbursed for people who are on extra duty work is it handled exactly the same way you say more yes we have someone who's being paid fifteen hundred dollars a year to serve as the map counts coordinator there taking students to the state map counts competition and knock on wood someday it'll be the national math counts competition and they have expenses do they use this same policy for reimbursement of their expenses and if so i think it should say that and if not it should be somewhere else a lot of our work is going to be in having a very detailed a are we i don't know that we can just plug in right now say a as a class extra duty positions when we look at certain clubs we do reimburse certain other activities we don't reimburse we're going to just have a very very detailed a r and as a potentially a board workshop i'm happy to lay that back on your take yes to talk about that because it is a little bit all over the the board right now ok any o the toward the bottom of page one the second paragraph and i realize now that it's bold that means it was there before each employee is required to like a nurse or a guidance counselor or someone who isn't necessarily supervisory and doesn't necessarily have an advanced degree and has a specific and restriction on the way that they perform their work when they're classifie so are you saying they you think there should be in place a where everybody's keeping their time in case someone successfully makes an argument that they are nonexempt or that most of these are and then identifies in the next line there we go ok any other comments think this should be in here all everything that's in here is required by law or something that's per contract and it's on personal necessity lead and tell me if i'm wrong but when i read it i looked at it and i said this is all either in the contract or it's required by law so why do we have a policy i'm wondering  do you support employees have a contract are they covered and support employees or confidential secretaries don't have a contract or say they have a if there's something here that needs to be here so be it what is your preference i don't it doesn't hurt anything i am against having more than we need i just like that it says the board can specify that the conditions that's fine any other comments ok my next one was three thirty eight point one three thirty i believe that the first sentence is unnecessary because it already says all requests for such leave should be subject to review by the board and that we may approve or reject a proposed plan  and if we have a policy that says we shall create a policy then why have we not created the policy instead of saying that the policy is we'll creat and there seems to be quite a lot of terms in here that this sure looks like a policy to me so then if we eliminated that first sentence you would say all request for professional development leave shall be subject to review by the board or pick a name is just compensated professional leave cover both of those things is that the point is if it covers both of those things in the words there should not be professional development leave it should be compensated professional yeah and then instead of such it would be compensated for affectional i have i speak with great adamancy which makes it sound like i know something i don't so i these are just my thoughts i mean i don't see that it makes any substantive change so i don't have a problem compensated professional leaves i think that the change is fine ok dr murphy take development out up there just compensated professional leave because that's the name of the policy then on page three second section here it is not sufficient not to say what happens if they don't get a b now where you said under what is the consequence if they do not successfully complete do they reimburse do they lose their  there i like that much better and that makes me feel like i didn't totally screw up  question that's probably inappropriate and i shouldn't ask it but this is the right form some kind i ask anyway why are we paying people who aren't teaching you mean under this policy yes where's the compensation i believe it's computer requirements under code that we have for other professional leaders why i just like why isn't every teacher taking this because they can go to school and get half pay because i think that the board can approve or reject their proposals assuming in the second change made i would respectfully submit that the phrasing be changed to avoid the split infinitive so what your recommendation said if to successfully complete i would recommend to complete successfully not that that's a big deal i just put the original before the current reading it was called professional development leave it now reads compensated professionally for under the definitions there are there seem to me to be two types of compensate a professional leave so if you're changing professional development leave to now will to include nel classroom occupational exchange leath that seems to be more a sub of a substantive change not just a phrase so in the first sentence it says purpose this policy parameters for granting professional development and classroom occupation exchange exactly those are the two types of compensated professionalise compensated professionally and under authority it used to read just one of those exchange leave to check it is divided there's another large heading for the classroom occupation with no authority above it so i'm assuming that the authority for both of them is the authority on page one i'm not necessarily challenging i just want to make sure that is what the board wanted that's all so i have to make sure that compensated levy that encompasses both is proper so we'll leave it as it is but i'll just make sure that i read the statutes and and make sure that that's ok this and hopefully i'll remember what my notes mean when i go back ok any other comments on three thirty eight point one ok i go all the way to three forty two  very i totally understand the addition actually serve but it's not right ok and let me just tell you the purpose so when we suggest language it will be accurate i was recently served for jury duty and it said my service was the entire week but i merely had to show up on day one i was not chosen and i was excused from serving for the rest of the week so we were trying to eliminate paying allowing people to say here's my summons it's for the entire week when they actually serve just one day of it so that was the purpose of the change or here's the problem with that you didn't serve you report service on the jury you were called for a jury so i understood exactly what i'm going for here but those words don't do it so if we change served to reported i would be fine with that because that was what pick you you get paid for one day of jury duty and that's what you say that's what you reported but you didn't actually serve on a jury but she's saying i really served my entire service which was the whole week but i only had to report one day from my week's worth of service rights act kind of and i again it's the last time i got called for jury duty i reported the first day i didn't get picked for the juries they were selecting on monday but they made me report again on wednesday when they were picking additional jurors so i actually had to report two days to get rejected of course but i had to report two days i never did serve it and you can tell me i'm full of crap and distinction then are the authorities incorrect ok i would be fine if we had a little clarifying phrase that says this includes situations in which you are summoned you report but are not selected or something like that i mean look at this statute to just say i just was having been called eight or ten times and never got it and still getting my twenty three dollars for you would have to say service as a juror or at tendence well now that doesn't for response to a summons reporting for jury duty and and or the jury duty summons by the way and other times  how about if you just say response to jury duty summons reporting for service because then that we're talking about the attendance then right orse or services or two i think i really like ok and just let me tell you what we were thinking was just soon trips if you remember when we were doing the one hundreds we pulled student trips out because we felt like it could take an entire saturday workshop or something thinking about how to word it and the problem that we were encountering because we actually i think went and proposed something to p s b a and realized that we thought it was we were trying to be clear because we were trying to define every type of trip and pigeonhole it into a definition and so the attempt at this policy was to make it much more general and not trying to define what is an extra curricular trip because some of them are competitions and some of them aren't and not trying to pigeonhole them into a definition but make it very broad and then after it goes through the second read then having a workshop to create detailed a r s so that we won't have to say because it's my understanding that certain extra curricular trips might be treated differently like if they are more curricular related or not or and that would be a discussion then but right now if we had very broad definitions it we couldn't we felt like we couldn't even defining field trips and then just trips in general in them breaking out the international or overnight we couldn't really find good definitions to pigeonhole them in there so that when i thought this was a vast improvement ok good you do a great job oh i thought you had comments about it i do have to love ok but i thought overall you don't write great job i thought this was much more useful than ok just and so that would be the idea in the future is that we'd all get together and maybe i don't know we'd have to have athletic department representation or whatever so they can say here is what we normally do i mean we've had some conversations some times where i'd say i know this team is going to states but why does the j v team have to go i understand that it's great and they can go but should we be paying for it certain things like that if we create detail day ours and all come together on it so ok i have actually two relatively minor comments one of them is we live in the stream southwestern corner of pennsylvania why do we focus on out of state and not on a radius why wouldn't it be trips within one hundred fifty miles or something like that because you can go thirteen miles and be out of state right now there's a nasa competition town in wheeling that's that's out of state and i don't know and i would just suggest that there may be some insurance reason i have no idea but it seems to me particularly in when you're located where we are it would make more sense to mean and that's you know it's a narrow than i as far as i know and i don't practice in the syria so i don't know everything there is to know but i just wanted to raise the question because it seemed to me to be a much more useful policy if it was based on you know you know i seventeen is just a general i think that's a general catchall that you can make reasonable regulations but i'll check the second question i had is if the second and third one are actually of the same thing and they both occur on pitch two so that's mildly helpful there is a sect and under field trips the second paragraph refers to not being denied the opportunity to participate in a field trip for financial reasons and that specifically says field trip at the very bottom the next to the last paragraph on that page has the sentence students or parents and guardians may be required to provide financial support for the student  trip and i didn't see under the new version that field trip and student trip were different things which means we have two sentences that don't quite reconcile i think the idea there was that those are things that you cannot be denied but all trips you would be talking about lots of different voluntary trips that even athletic trips would fall in there so if it costs or band trips so if it cost a thousand dollars that kid to go down to disney world to march we would not want the district to be obligated in that sense i mean that was the purpose i think and i assumed that was the purpose but you'll recall at least as i read it we no longer ok you know what i just realized how this page structured and i think it's ok because that one is under field trips and the other one's under all trips for them to fast i'm sorry it is you can't see it in fact when i when i read it i asked dr murphy could you please send this to me so that i can read it clean just go out yes you know now that was my only other comment and i did your structure takes care of it so i don't have that comment ok does anybody else have any other comments to this or any issues about how we would proceed so if we went through with this general policy we'd have the understanding that i mean it might even her of the summer towards the end of over the summer  get a group of people together and actually you know do the a r s with the answer is a radius of course there's some language here that would write and so the question would be if we changed it to a radius that one has to decide on a right he has and mccarthy well right here's here's what i would use is a rule of thumb if you're leaving after school as a practical matter you're not going to be able to drive more than three or four hours before you stop overnight so if you set one hundred fifty or two hundred miles and you come back and say not me to fifty i'm here but that means you could leave after school get where you're going and you'd be done and i would guess the person that probably i'm guessing the most trips that occur with respect to athletics would that be accurate is quantity of trips yes i would assume that's true  you can leave at six in the morning and get there for a ten o'clock competition if you're one hundred fifty miles away and the competition's over before you can come home you can be home without having to stay over night you go much farther than that you're going to have to stay over night so why don't we do this we'll leave it as it is we will check if there's some washington on jet crossing state lines significance and then we could if there isn't we can consult with some people to see if there's any general idea or whether the administrator you know if that's going to be more difficult for them to decide whether they need pennsylvania and currently we do and you don't and may not require board approval so just what the board would want to know if our children or another state or how far they've traveled because it's simply just coming before you for you for your approval  administratively i don't think will make much of a difference i'm far more interested in where they have to stay overnight but any time they have to stay overnight you still have to have board approval no matter if it's two miles away  be more interested in how long the bus trip is if it's over so many hours i don't want children on a bus for fairly long and i guess the question is like i'm trying to think of those types of there's something you know a way to incorporate that but it's  i'm trying to catch a rational n my guess is if we made the change we would see less of some and more of others i don't care about quantity i really don't care about quantity i'm more concerned about how long are the kids sitting on a bus without a potty stop or you know those kinds of issues those are the things i next monday we had reserved next monday at six thirty in case we did not finish these but since we have finished and hopefully this is the last time you will see this many policies at a committee meeting has now were in line to just update them you will be receiving and there's a new policy that we have to have in place by the time school starts and it's on suicide prevention and  statutory mandatory policy we i was hoping that p s b a which we've been told it's been written we were hoping that we would have it this evening and we don't and what might happen is you know we might have to have a special voting meeting connected with something else to make sure that we have that i mean acted but it's not something that we can right on our own because it's taken them months and months and they've really  consulted yes yes but right right i first read in a second marine so we have august but i don't know what changes to the handbook that we need to make for this suicide prevention policy i'm not sure that there will be a lot of changes to the handbook but i did stress at the spring legal round up because one of p s p a tourney's was speaking there and i  stressed to her the fact that you know not only do we want to get the policy inactive but we need to change our handbook so you know she said that she would get back to that because she said it has been written so i don't know if they're just waiting for someone to bless it before they send it out but we have not received it as of yet so that's the only thing i know it's coming through the pike room ok so the meeting is adjourned thank you