That public comment is not a
forum for personal attacks, antagonistic behavior or harassment.
Please be advised that you're accountable for any legal ramifications and liability
which may result from statements misrepresenting the truth,
defending individuals or disclosing personal information,
not a public concern.
To provide other residents with an opportunity to speak each speaker
during the public comment portion
is limited to 5 minutes of speaking time once recognized and limited
to one opportunity to address the board during each of the public comment periods.
If necessary, the board may set a maximum time
for the public comment portion of any meeting.
I will ask board Treasurer, Mrs.
Seger to please keep time.
Are there any residents or taxpayers who would like to comment on agenda
items at this time?
Seeing none in the audience?
I would open it up to individuals who are participating
virtually.
I don't see any at this time.
Okay.
Moving on to community correspondence support.
Ms.. Karpel, do you have a report for us, please?
I do.
Thank you.
For the month of June, the district received 11 community
correspondence Submissions, comments and questions for this month include
two requests regarding COVID test kit information.
Two questions about the school board.
Two questions about transcripts and report cards.
A question about returning iPads,
a question about regarding bathrooms, and two comments
regarding the health and safety plan and COVID information on the website.
Thank you.
The listed items are on the anticipated August
eight, 2022, Board of Directors Meeting Agenda
Consent Agenda Items.
The Content Agenda contains routinely adopted items and items
which normally do not require public deliberation on the part of the board.
A board member may pull items which will then be discussed and voted on separately.
May I please have a motion to approve the consent agenda items as listed?
So move to Miami. Second, Mike Rizzo.
Is there any discussion?
This is a standard voice vote.
All those in favor say I, i any opposed say no.
The consent agenda is approved.
New business items.
First up is the emergency instructional time template.
Dr. Windsor.
The administration recommends the board approve the Derry Township School
District 2022 2023 Emergency Instructional Time Templates.
Thank you.
May I please have a motion to approve the emergency instructional time template?
So moved Miami.
Second. Mike Rizzo.
Is there any discussion?
This is standard voice vote.
All those in favor.
Please say I buy any opposed.
Say no.
Next item is
the notice of modification and termination of tax collection services.
Dr. Windsor.
The administration recommends the board retroactively accept
the notice of modification
and termination to the Derry Township Tax Collection Association.
Thank you.
May I please have a motion
to retroactively accept notice of modification
and termination to the Derry Township Tax Collection Association?
So move to Miami. Second, Microsoft.
Is there any discussion?
I would just like to add for a point of clarification,
this retroactive notice is because following our last
public business meeting,
the school district and school board
were notified of the township's intent to issue their letter
pursuant to the longstanding agreements with the tax collector
and the two township for the tax collection to serve services
done by the Derry Township Tax Collection Association.
In response to that and to remain compliant, understanding
that if the township were to change their real estate tax collection
services, it would put the school district
in a position of wanting and needing to also review those.
Since the Township Tax Collection Association budget is solely made
of the contributions of both the school district and the township.
So we issued that letter as well for June 30th
following
meetings from the township and understanding the proposals
that they're considering and maybe voting on at their next meeting.
At our August meeting, we will be having a discussion
and full outline on tax collection services and our opportunity
or the options that are available to us for the various taxes
as well as cost comparison savings.
Just for full transparency.
So anyone have any questions
or any other discussion?
Okay.
This is the standard voice vote.
All those in favor, please say hi.
Any personal
item is approved.
The next item is the approval of an affiliation agreement.
Dr. Windsor.
The administration recommends the board approve the affiliation agreement
with Derry Township School District
and Shippensburg University effective July 18th, 2022.
Thank you.
May I please have a motion
to approve the affiliation agreement with Shippensburg University?
So moved Maria Me second. Mike Rizzo.
Is there any discussion?
This is a standard voice vote.
All those in favor, please say hi.
Any personnel?
We have another approval of an affiliation agreement.
Dr. Windsor.
The administration recommends the board
approve the affiliation agreement with Derry Township School
District and Susquehanna University, effective July 18th, 2022.
Thank you.
May I please have a motion
to approve the affiliation agreement with Susquehanna University?
So move to marry me.
Second, Mike Rizzo.
Is there any discussion?
This is standard voice vote.
All those in favor, please say I am your personal
approval of the speaker.
Bus Lines Transportation Agreement. Dr. Windsor.
The administration recommends
the board approve the agreement with Swiger Bus Lines Inc.
to provide transportation primarily for our special education and
homeless students.
Thank you.
May I please have a motion to approve This way.
Your bus lines Transportation agreement.
So moved.
Where am I? My second Microsoft.
Is there any discussion?
This a standard voice vote?
All those in favor.
Please say I i Any posting now?
The next item
is the 2022 legislative platform, and the board recommends the approval
of the proposed addition to the 2022 legislative platform and directs the Board
Secretary to submit to SBA for their consideration
on behalf of the Derry Township School Board of Directors.
The addition is to supporting concept 2.4 safety and discipline issues
under the core legislative
principle number two, strengthening the work of local school boards.
May I please have a motion to approve the proposed 2022
SBA Legislative Platform addition?
So move Teri Center.
Second Cathy Singer
Moving into discussion.
Here for me, as is Microsoft.
I don't agree with everything it's written in this proposal.
So for that
purpose I will be voting no.
I was unaware that was being written.
So voting on today is first time.
I mean, other than the proposal, this weekend was the first time
that I've had a chance to really understand what this was about.
But again, I think as a school board,
I know we have some good
we have some need to provide
our circle of influence to the SBA.
But I sit there in the statement
talking about how the SBA is not supporting
it, and yet we want to force that through or we want to provide our thoughts
on this, the gun regulation to the SBA.
I just don't understand why
why we would push them to do something that they're not currently working on.
And so to me, that doesn't make sense.
And we we look at a resource and a reference
and we have one resource in reference versus multiple viewpoints.
So to me, I want to be voting for this.
I mean, this is Terry Singer.
I just wanted to
provide just a little bit of background on.
Spirit.
PSB and what this opportunity represents.
I think everyone here knows that the Las Vegas School Boards Association
represents school boards across the state.
It provides training and education.
I think that we've all probably participated in
and they also do advocacy on behalf of school boards
annually.
They seek proposals for consideration
for their legislative platform from school boards.
So they reach out to us seeking, you know, any ideas and suggestions we have.
The legislative platform then becomes the association's official
record of position on legislative issues that guide their efforts.
So, you know, we're we're being asked,
as are school boards across the state, if there are any issues that we'd
like to propose
for their consideration for inclusion in their platform.
We have many options as a board in
thinking about what we might propose.
We can voice support for the continuation of specific current platform statements.
We can create new proposals, we can amend existing platform language,
or we can suggest the deletion of a current statement.
So my reading of that is the PSB is
is asking us to be thinking about
different things,
some of which include things that are not currently in their platform
and that's why they're soliciting you know, ideas from,
you know, from school boards.
Our particular proposal talks about the option
of amending an existing plan, some existing platform language.
So just I might have misunderstood.
Understood your observation, Mike, and I
just wanted to provide some background.
If I may, because I think I understand the difference.
So first, thank you to Mr.
Singer and Mr.
Bennett for collaborating on that.
The topics for this, I just realized that the document
that's attached to the agenda was not the final document
that had been provided and so the part that you saw
with a rationale and then propose rationale underneath it,
prior to that going onto the agenda,
there had been discussion for the proposed rationale to replace.
So where it was discussing about PSB not having,
you know, taking a position or doing anything that was removed
in the final version and replaced
with the italicized part on page two
because ultimately SBA is school directors.
And so it it's
at the
direction of school boards across the Commonwealth
that drive the creation of the legislative platform.
So PSB a PSB does something or doesn't do something.
It's the collective voice of all members of PSB, which is the 500 school districts.
Does that clarify that?
And this is Mike Rizzo.
It's a little bit, but not much.
So I'm sort of my voting on today. Sure.
So it would be the the proposal, which is the addition
to the core legislative principle, too.
And so the legislative proposals that PSB are the proposals for amendments
to their legislative platform that PSB it calls for, ask for the proposal,
which is what we are asking them to add, amend, take away.
And then the rationale behind it is what is provided to the platform
committee, which is made up of members of PSB from school districts across
Pennsylvania who vote and make a recommendation to the delegate
Assembly in November, where all voting members, two from every school district
who are members of PSB vote on those proposed changes.
So what this proposal is doing
is adding a line to
or adding a section to that supporting concept under core legislative
principle two, and that would call the school board would call on the state.
And so those items that are listed one through six, if passed
and by this board as presented, would be submitted
to PSB for consideration and inclusion of the legislative platform
that everyone votes on.
Okay, this is Mike Rizzo.
Again, I understand where you're what you're
speaking about now, but in in the end, I think, again,
with the overall volatile situation in in voting rates,
in voting and things that are happening in the the government today,
it just seems like a volatile piece of representation that we're giving the PSB.
I would rather have us put our efforts towards being able to provide
safer schools for funding, be able to look at the mental part of it
and working on the individuals to build them to the point
where, you know, maybe they're not carrying guns in the school
and they're looking at bullying and all the other things
that we currently do within our school district.
But looking at ways of bettering that versus looking at something that's
outside of our control and even influence
to a degree, probably into my mind, on the edge of influence
to it
just to me doesn't seem like something that I can support.
Sure. So that's where I'm at.
Yeah, completely.
I just want to make sure you understood from the rationale part.
I reviewed the proposal that that was submitted
and took a look at it and had worked with Mr.
Singer and provided some information to help with
creating some of the supporting items.
I do support items one through four
because they came directly from
some policy research from the Everytown
for Gun Safety and
Education Association
that was provided, and it was kind of a policy manual
that is reinforced by statistics and data
that are asking for some common sense measures.
And so for me
in Pennsylvania, we've advocated and this board has advocated
to enhance
various school safety protections, provide funding,
you know, for things like threat assessments and school resource officers
through Act 77 that was
passed following the Parkland shooting in 2018,
that a lot of those measures were addressed
to me, items one through four from
a topic perspective helps to enhance what schools are already doing.
And so while I always think that we should be broadening and expanding,
you know, the funding and support for mental health
and for the assessments for security measures, we know
even just from having the risk and vulnerability
assessments done that
what we do is only so, you know, is only
so good and schools can do as much as they can.
But these items try to help
on the front end of it, in my view, to make sure that
weapons don't end up in the hands of someone who should not have them,
and that there are, you know, raising the minimum age
to purchase semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines
requiring background checks on all sales so that there are not loopholes
to be able to do that,
secure firearms storage to,
you know, ensure that if there is a firearm in a home
with a minor, that there are, you know, laws in place
guiding people on how to securely store those so that a student would not be able
to have easier access and potentially bring that to school.
So I support those from the, you know, perspective of
I think that there is a lot of data to support that.
I think that these are very driven and relatable to education
and the things that we're seeking to try to do from a security perspective
in preventing gun violence in our schools.
Number five, number six are not things that I'm necessarily opposed to.
My concern with them being in this proposal is that
I wouldn't want to see anything that that takes away from the possibility
of this being adopted and added to the platform that PSB advocates for
on behalf of us, which is on behalf of,
you know, our community and our students.
So I would propose
a motion to
amend this to have items one through four,
as I believe that those are
the most backed by data and research
and support, and that we've seen
a lot of other legislation in other states
take form similar to these four things.
Do you need a section to do that? Yes.
Second Cathy sticker.
So we have a motion to amend
the proposal
to remove items five and six
made by me and seconded by Mrs.
Seger. Is there any discussion on that?
Yes, Robert, but actually I was, you know, I can't help Mr.
Singer out with this.
He use me kind of as a relief of sorts.
Was kind of a tongue in cheek conversation we had one day.
And then some of this actually came out of like an email I sent to him.
It was kind of like a casual conversation and so I was a bit surprised to see it
kind of word for word from like an email that I just kind of sent.
So I there's no nothing backing that.
That was kind of just some of my opinions on that.
I guess that I wasn't really expecting to see on that proposal
were amending things like some of these.
There's some other ones I don't particularly agree with
all that well-intentioned.
I think I might be out of line here, but I think as a board,
I'm not sure as a whole we have enough gun knowledge
probably to be making some of these proposals.
For example, like can anybody here tell me even what the current storage
levels are in Pennsylvania?
So we're making proposals for one that nobody here
can even tell us what that law is.
So I'm going to guess that there are no storage laws to go ahead.
That's the district. You are correct.
Can't sell it with a gun lot, but there's no laws.
There's no specific law.
You can just have it in your dresser.
You can have it laying next to the TV.
There are no laws.
You have to ask when you buy one. It comes with a gun lock.
You have to sell the gun lock. But there's no laws but correct. So
whether proposed that or not, my point is like nobody knows.
That's we're bringing things that we don't necessarily have the knowledge of.
And some like with the red flag walls, I'm not sure like three or two
non-ambulatory commitment really covers a lot of this already some of the stuff.
So I don't want again, I don't know how up we are on these kind of things.
So once again, to be voting on things that we don't have enough knowledge
based on that, I have an issue with that.
Not even that I disagree with everything, and I'm not sure it's
really properly backed at this point. Sure.
So I will add that in in my support for these, I did read the plan
that that these were derived from and knew
that they were applicable to Pennsylvania and that Pennsylvania did not have
the components of the laws being recommended in those items for it.
That's why.
Thank you.
This is Cathy Zucker.
I support your motion to push through one, through four.
I think it's important for us as school board leaders to do anything
we can to protect children and save lives.
These extreme risk laws,
secure firearms storage laws, raising the minimum age to purchase
a semiautomatic firearm to age 21 and require background checks on all gun
sales are researched and proven that they can save lives.
Recently, guns has become
the leading cause of death for American children.
It has surpassed automobile accidents.
We are at a crisis level right now of gun violence in our country,
and I want to do anything possible to keep kids safe.
It's just unbelievable
that Columbine was 23 years ago
and we're still having mass shootings in schools and in elementary schools.
So I think it's incumbent
of us as a board to do anything possible to try to save lives.
These are these four
measures.
Most Americans agree with.
They're not taking guns away.
You can you can legally own a gun.
You're just supposed to store them properly.
Safe storage laws would have saved my brother's life
from being killed.
Background checks would have saved my brother's life.
If you have anyone you know in your family
who died from gun violence, these are important laws.
They're not infringing on the Second Amendment.
They're not taking guns away.
They're just trying to make us safer and save
kids lives and save people's lives.
This is our proposal for us that the SBA then has to vote on.
I don't doubt that they'll have another discussion like us, and it may not pass.
It may not get through the proposal.
But I just think it's it's us showing that we want to do everything
possible to not have Uvalde, Texas, in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Thank you, Mrs.
Wicker.
I'll add on to that from that perspective as well,
because I know that we can have a robust conversation about it
and if it passes here, it still has to go to SBA.
And the likelihood, you know, even if it becomes part of the legislative platform,
you know,
we're still just one organization in that would be advocating for these laws
and lobbying on behalf of the SBA, you know, in Harrisburg.
So whether it's going to to change something,
you know, is a very large unknown.
And it could come out in a very different form than even what we present.
But I know that I became a school
board director just months before Parkland.
And so being a parent, being a school board director and thinking about that,
if, God forbid, something ever happened
in any school district in our area
or every time one happens in America,
it makes me think about what
how would we want to have
advocated, how would we want to have,
you know, tried to prevent that and this board?
I'm really proud of the work that's been done with
having the risk and vulnerability assessment before they were, you know,
put in by law to be done of the enhancements
or security measures that the district has, you know,
undertaken and the, you know, financial investment in that
of the policies that we've strengthened to be able to do those things.
I see this as that next step of reinforcement
and I want to be able to know that we've done everything that we could
to minimize the threat to our
to our children and to our staff and to our community
from having to experience that kind of tragedy.
And when you look at what's happened recently
in Uvalde in Texas, a minimum age
requirement law could have stopped that
because an 18 year old
was able to purchase that type of weapon that was used
in that shooting and something like this would have been done.
And so for me, it's the effort that we make of saying this.
We spoke up and we as a body,
you know, asked for this inclusion
so that we can say that we did everything within our power and within our you know,
sphere of influence as school leaders to to try
to make our children safer.
This is Eric Schmitt.
So why did we remove five and six?
So for me, five and six, I'm proposing the amendment to remove
because I know that it did come from, you know, Mr.
Bennett's comments and not necessarily how, you know,
he would have envisioned that or there wasn't supporting measures
to reinforce it that I feel give it the best chance
of being considered by the PSB, a platform committee.
I also think that those topics are less
they're more on
on the side of after a crime is committed instead of the prevention.
And so for me, for us to be doing anything as school board directors,
I think that it should apply on trying to prevent and
items one through four do that and are broadly
research based.
You could argue that consequences are preventable
like means to prevent an action and the straw purchase
if somebody is supplying a firearm to a person
that is preventable to.
Sure.
I'm looking more from the data and the research behind school shootings.
Typically, the weapons are not acquired by straw gun sales.
You know, in the statistics that support,
you know, that make up school violence
and most children wouldn't have been
had, you know, sentencing applied to them.
So it's not something that I would disagree with advocating
for outside of this.
I just feel that in the
in the lane that we are in a school
directors items one through four
I think are the most broadly accepted
and are have the most research supporting
to provide it the best chance of consideration
as a whole by the voting membership.
This is Lindsay Clarke. I have a question.
Is there a time constraint to do this?
Because I listening to Mr.
Bennett's comments about kind of how this came to be
and I know I had to look up a lot of this, like to your point about laws
and kind of how this coincides with what we currently have,
like, is there a time constraint if collectively
we put more into this and then maybe revisit it.
It's due on July 22nd. Yeah.
So PSB accepts proposals for this year's platform until July 22nd.
So if it's not passed today, then it wouldn't
be brought forward to the platform committee for consideration.
But next year,
so say this was adopted the way that we sent
it, items one through four and we wanted to add five and six.
That would be a next step for next year's consideration because once it's adopted
into the legislative platform, it's there and then that's where it's built upon.
So we have
this school board has has sent proposals in previous years,
and I believe it was like 19 and 22 kind of piggybacked on one another
to to strengthen the previous year's proposal based on what was adopted.
But there is the time constraint from that.
Okay. Thanks.
I think just this is Terry Sanger.
Again, to add to something, I think Lindsay said the
this is going to be vetted through a pretty lengthy process.
It's submitted to PSP on July 22nd, then it goes
to the platform committee on September 17th.
And then there is final consideration by the delegate assembly, to which
I believe we voted Donna and Lindsay to attend as our representatives.
There's another consideration by the
Delegate Assembly on November 5th.
So and then this year they're going to add a new feature,
which is through a separate process that they're going to run.
Oh, no, I'm sorry.
That's for the 2324 session, not not for this year.
So that's the process that it goes through.
You know, pretty rigorous vetting and review.
One of my feelings
in trying to advance this was that
if there is one more organization
that we have,
one more organization thinking about it,
who might not have thought about it previously, although I would imagine
they would have
possibly an organization adopting
one or two or three of these
issues as as being part of their
their legislative platform and their advocacy agenda.
And then possibly a couple of more legislators
hearing from another organization that maybe they hadn't
heard from previously on issues related to gun safety.
No thought that somehow the
SBA would just take this lock, stock and barrel and oh, yeah, we love this.
We're going to advance it.
And the legislature would hear from PSP and of all of a sudden they draw up,
you know, laws to incorporate these these concepts
that, you know, that isn't going to happen in the real world.
But if we just have, you know, one more organization
of during their advocacy and their and their activity
interacting with the legislators are talking about these things,
it just, you know, one more grain of sand
to hopefully help build a beach
or a beach and.
Anyone else have any other discussion
on the amendment to on the on the motion on the floor
to amend to only include items one through four in the submission.
This is just terrorism against.
Want to apologize to Bob.
I didn't mean to include it
if you didn't mean for it to be included.
I support those measures like I said. Okay.
Yeah. No.
Of where that that was going to be quite done like that.
Yeah.
So anyway, I apologize for that.
Mr. Bennett.
Okay then what we have to do next
is take a roll call vote on the motion to amend.
So we're only voting to remove five and six right now.
Correct.
Mrs. Agee, roll call, please.
Mr. Bennett. Yes.
Mr.. Yes, Dr.
Katz? Yes.
Mrs. Manning?
Yes. Mr.
Rizzo? No.
Mr. Schmidt. No.
Mr. Secor. Yes.
Mr. Singer? Yes.
Six. Yes.
And two Now.
Thank you.
So that
the motion has been amended.
So then I would ask
if there is any additional discussion before we vote on that item as amended.
Yeah.
Robert Bennett.
So number one, once again, that's one that I think is redundant
under like the serious threat people, you know, calling terror threat.
A lot of this.
My opinion with this whole thing is you know a lot is covers under the threat
or to involuntary commitment when you're posing a great harm to yourself or others,
you can be, you know,
involuntarily committed to me
taking the gun away is, you know, you can't have guns anymore.
As soon as you're three or two,
you're no longer in Pennsylvania, allowed to possess by firearms,
which I think has a much better impact than, you know, temporary
taking the person away from the gun. So you're
taking the gun away from the person, but you've left them on the street.
So there's all kinds of other ways that people can do harm other than firearms,
which time to show vehicles, knives, all kinds of stuff people do.
So you're taking one tool away, but you're not really removing the problem.
So I think it's kind of just going to
I don't think it's in the grand scheme by helpful.
So with number one being attached, I'm going to be oppose this amendment
with this.
Proposal just from a question perspective
with the 302, does that
is that required to go through petition to the court.
It's similar because.
This one sound, the way I understand it,
is that this is not for a302.
This is that
law enforcement educators, family members could petition
a court to prevent from having the access to firearms.
So it's not the same type of declaration as a302 would be,
which wouldn't carry the same consequences.
Well, it is as you can throw to like on the street,
like you can be taken immediately to hospital and committed by the police.
A doctor kind of if it's a family member,
they get with like crisis intervention and they it all happens within hours.
But once again, I'm removing the person.
So this person is that big of a threat that they need to have this happen.
Do I remove the person from the problem or remove
one tool that they would have to create havoc?
I think it's better to take the person way than take
the one firearm because are many other ways you can be.
You can cause havoc on the community other than the firearm.
Yes, that can happen in a matter of, you know, police response.
Next thing you know, you're going to be in the hospital.
Right.
This is where I see just the difference if there's due process and and court
orders required inside of these extreme
risk laws compared to the three to it.
It's just not it doesn't seem to be the same to me.
But I guess what, you're three of two you're also you're
you can no longer possess by having more firearms.
Like that's done. You're done.
So but this would provide an alternative to just using the 302 option, correct?
Yeah.
I guess if that's how you're looking at I'm look to it's
under the same thing you know you're a serious threat to themselves or others.
But it's saying these extreme risk protection
orders sometimes known as red flag orders or gun
violence restraining orders, can be issued only after a specific legal
determination is made that a person poses a serious threat to themselves or others.
They also contain strong due process protections
to ensure that a person's rights are balanced for public safety.
Once issued,
the person is required to relinquish any guns and prohibited to buy new.
This prohibition is
temporary, generally lasting one year.
So it's not the same you know, measures as a302 would be in.
So I would see this as being an alternative to
to providing in extreme risk situations through due process
measures to remove.
Excuse me, that doesn't seem to me it does seem very immediate,
like there's a problem and you address like now, like going through these.
Like how long does it take for this whole process to happen?
How do the guns get removed?
Are you going to start?
Cause I've been on a lot of through to barricaded gun.
Are we going to a SWAT team? Come remove these guns.
That's sometimes that's what requires
you get the three of two people out of these houses.
So I think I don't know that this one, although well-intentioned,
I don't think has doesn't really solve the problem as well as I think
whenever that practical the of it I think is not is
the practicality of it is not quite
the same as what it looks like on paper in my opinion.
This is a Cathy Zwicker.
I look at this as in addition to the three two, because I think
when they've studied mass shootings, they know that a lot of these
say these people do give indication of what they're doing.
They're often most of them are suicidal and they've posted things on social media
and somebody knows somebody has read something,
somebody has they've said something like, I'm going to kill everybody.
And so this to me is just reinforcing
that more like this is another step.
It's not a whole threat to.
You got.
You commit somebody and guns do much more damage.
Then we can argue this, right?
But an AR 15, you saw that there were one police officers or 30
who wouldn't even go into the classroom for 2 hours because it was too dangerous.
And a AR 15 does a lot more damage than a knife.
So to me, this is just one more step.
It's it's not an extreme step.
It's a little step to help the problem that we know.
We do know things about mass shootings.
And so I feel like this is in they did the research
and that's why they came up with this one.
And that's where I look at.
We're just asking for this to be considered for, you know, for legislation.
Obviously, there's a lengthy process that would go through that
that I'm sure would, you know, bring in the perspective
that you're sharing and kind of what works and what doesn't
and would be vetted through, you know, a lot of other things.
I guess I would just ask for
consideration that if you believe that
some of these
would be helpful in preventing, you know, school gun
violence situation from that perspective,
you know that you look at it
through that lens,
understanding there's a long road.
You compound on each other, for example,
with an hour, 15 rifle everybody like to talk about,
I can sell it to my neighbor, cash in hand.
No one even knows you have that.
So that's where you know the one about the number four.
Right?
So without that one, that's irrelevant.
Like the plea.
I have no idea what anybody has in their house other than handguns.
Like, you know, Miss Razor could have 10 hours.
I'd never know it. So I come up and say, Give me your air.
They give me two.
He starts eating out like it's completely impractical.
I would hope that the person using the red flag law could
somebody living with them.
I mean, you know, yet there are
there might be a lot of flaws in this, but at least we're doing something
right now.
There's nothing like you said, there are no safe storage laws.
It's ridiculous.
I said I agree with. I'm not I agree.
Some of these
this one is just modest from this one just muddies why it's so impractical
that it just makes the whole enforcement of anything else so much more difficult
because that one is just so in.
When you put it to actual practice, it's so it just doesn't work like this.
It's not feasible, like it's well-intentioned and I get it.
But to try and implement this practically is just
not a doable thing and it's really wasting resources.
The legislature put things in place that don't work,
and that's just not a practical thing to be doing.
So I'm wondering, since we just removed five and six kind of for those reasons,
like if we should discuss
potentially removing one, if as a majority, we think it's important.
I do think that coming forward to PSB
and saying it's not acceptable to be silent, we need to do something like
there's only so much we can do in schools with mental health and bullying.
I like the idea of taking a stronger stance on gun violence.
I think Mr.
Bennett makes really great points and knows a lot more about this than I do,
so I can understand the confusion with number.
And I'm wondering if we should discuss the potential of removing one
and creating something that more solely represents
our opinion as a group that we can get behind and support.
So we can leave here with something.
Because really
if you get to three and four, go, that's that's a solid win right there.
Just those three alone, in my opinion, if you can get that on the PSB agenda
and they've got that those, those three alone would be,
I think, a solid win for everybody.
So are you saying that if we vote for the current,
the current motions on the floor,
if it gets voted down, we can quickly make a motion to amend it
just to include one, two and three so it doesn't die.
You mean to.
No, I mean two, three.
Yeah, two, three and four like.
So were you amend it first.
Well either way, but I don't. Yeah.
So what can we do it to discussion.
Thank you.
I think if there's concern there I can offer the board two options on that.
One, we could have another motion to amend to remove item number one similar
to what we just did with items
five and six, or I would say we could probably pull item
number one for separate consideration if you'd like to do it that way.
But it would leave per be a requirement.
It has to be approved as a whole proposal in order to be submitted.
But we could approve the two, three and four.
At least we could vote on that and then vote on the other one.
At least then we would have a whole proposal and total
that would be submitted.
It is the information from PSB.
It has to be one vote or one
approval of these items to go to them.
Now, there's nothing I've seen that says it has to be in one vote.
It's just that whatever we submit has to be approved by the board.
So couldn't
we do a vote as amended currently
if that failed a reconsideration vote
amended to be two, three, four.
There's a few ways of getting there.
That's correct.
We just we need a motion and a direction.
But those are the options the board would have.
Okay, I'll make a motion to remove number one from the core proposal.
Okay.
So a motion to amend the amended motion.
Lead to three and.
Do to a three and four second that.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
So there a motion on the floor to amend the amended proposal
which would remove item number one
leaving item two, three and four.
Is there discussion about that?
The surrey shaking it?
Yes, for discussion?
No, I'm just excited that something's going to pass.
Possibly so.
All right.
So then we will do a roll call vote on the amended motion to further amend
this motion and and create
the proposed Virgin to be items two, three and four.
Can I just ask who had done that second.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay. Mr..
YES, Dr.
Cook. Yes,
Mrs. Mimi? Yes.
Mr. Rizzo. No.
Mr. Smith. Yes,
Mrs. Decker.
Yes, Mr.
Singer? Yes.
Mr. Bennett. Yes.
Seven. Yes. One. Now, Okay.
So the motion on the floor currently is an amended,
twice amended
proposal, which will be items two,
three and four.
Now for vote to approve, to send to PSB.
This vote will be the approving vote to decide whether or not to submit.
Is there any discussion before we proceed to the vote?
I would just like to say
thank you for the conversation and collaboration.
I think that
this is important work and with everything
there should be compromise and time and, you know, resources invested in it.
But it does make me proud that as a board we're able to have
these conversations and and put forward this work.
So I really appreciate everyone's discussion in this.
This is Cathy Secor.
I really, really appreciate that way past two, three and four.
I think it's awesome.
And I'm I'm very appreciative.
These are very important measures
and it's just a little small step, but
it means a lot that we as local
officials will send something forward like this.
Thank you.
So hearing no other discussion, Mrs.
Agee, I would ask for a roll call.
Vote, please, to vote on the twice amended motion for items two, three
and four to be approved for submission to PSB, a legislative platform.
Mr.. Yes.
Dr.. KECK. Yes,
This is Manny. Yes.
Mr.. RIZZO. No.
Mr.. SCHMITT. Yes.
Mr. Singer. Yes.
Mr. Singer?
Yes. Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Seven. Yes. One. No,
thank you,
Mrs. Agee.
We can work to make sure the correct Virgin's because of the rationale piece,
and then the consolidated two items, two, three and four
that you have all of that so that it can be submitted by the 22nd.
Thank you.
And there's one question.
This is terrorism or so at this point.
Then the administration will be able to take it
forward, get into the proper format.
Yeah, the board secretary will submit the application form
or the form at PSB website.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay.
Moving on to personnel resignations, Dr.
Windsor,
the administration recommends the approval of the personnel resignations.
May I please have a motion to approve the personnel resignations?
So move to Maria.
Mimi Second, Mike Rizzo.
Is there any discussion?
This is a standard voice vote.
All those in be replaced by any personnel,
personnel.
General Dr. Windsor.
The administration recommends
the approval of the list of personnel and recognition of any listed transfers.
Thank you.
May I please have a motion to approve
the listed personnel and recognition of any listed transfers?
So moved.
Maria Mimi Second, Microsoft.
Is there any discussion?
This is standard voice vote.
All those in favor say I, I and the A personnel
personnel general is approved.
That concludes our new business for this evening.
The SBA report is attached for a delegate reports
and then the SIU report is also attached.
Mr. Schmitt, do you have anything you'd like to add to that?
Nothing
in depth, but there is a save the date that you may have all seen.
The IU WHO is having a golf tournament to raise money
for the other children with challenges of special needs.
So that will be on July 25th if anybody is available and wanted to participate.
Thank you.
Are there any board members
who would like to give a report this evening?
Yeah, this is true, Senior.
I just wanted to thank the administration for a recent effort.
Upon request, they sent out a information
to families of nine through 12th graders in the district,
seeing if any of them would be interested in hosting a foreign exchange student
from Brazil that will be coming in to go to Hershey High School
for this upcoming academic year beginning in September,
through an activity that I'm involved with with the Hershey Rotary Club.
They sponsor are
foreign students, foreign students, both inbound and outbound.
And we were short one family.
And after the information was sent to the ninth through 12th grade families
over the weekend, we now have three potential prospects for
families willing to possibly host
a student to fill the one gap that we had.
So I just wanted to thank the administration for the help with that.
Thank you. Mr. Singer.
Are there any other board members who would like to give a report
documented You have a superintendent's report?
I do not have one this evening. Thank you.
Thank you for board presence report.
Just a reminder, we will not meet again
until the second Monday in August.
Since we are on our one meeting in July summer schedule.
And also, I just want to thank Mr.
Powell for the communication survey that went out today
and reminder to district families to check your email for that.
It's a survey to kind of
get your feedback and input on the way
in which the communications from the district are sent out.
So thank you for putting forth that effort.
And I know the Communications Committee did talk about that.
So I think it's always great opportunity to get that
feedback from those who are receiving the messages.
Moving on to our final recognition of citizens,
this is an opportunity for residents and taxpayers to address
the board on matters related to the agenda or matters of district governance
that were not on the agenda.
Those who speak are asked to follow the same guidelines outlined
at the initial public comment portion of our meeting
and I will ask board Treasurer, Mrs.
Seger, to please keep time.
Once again,
are there any residents or taxpayers who would like to comment on this
at this time?
We have one in person in the audience, so we'll go ahead
and get started in person and then move to virtual
everybody. My name is Brendan Foster.
I live at 2439 Raleigh Road
and I am a 2016 graduate of Hershey High School,
and I wanted to weigh in regarding the challenges
the books engender by Iris Gottlieb that was discussed last meeting,
because it seems to me that the voices of young people
were underrepresented in that discussion.
And this is probably not going
to be the last challenge that this board will hear.
So first off, I understand that this book deals
with tough topics, but the issues it discusses are real
and they affect kids in this district when it comes to LGBTQ issues.
Kids need these resources in schools because they may
or may not be ready to come out on to their parents.
I was friends with students who were in that position when I was a student here
with regards to race and policing.
I saw police brutality affect my community personally, almost one police officer
shot the unarmed David Kassick in the back while he was lying on the ground.
I was 16 when that happened.
That's why these resources are necessary for kids.
Just because some people don't make it
because it makes them uncomfortable doesn't mean adults can come in and say,
You don't understand this issue, so you're not allowed to read about it.
Sorry,
that signals to kids that school is not a place for education,
but it's a place where they're not allowed to learn the issues that affect them.
It's somehow an appropriate and shameful
to talk about things that they already lived through.
That's ridiculous.
I don't want my child reading this, therefore no one gets to read it.
That's ridiculous.
Do you have more specific example I want to address?
Some comments are made by certain non school board members.
Without naming names,
one objected to part of the book that stated that young black men
face a catch 22 when dealing with police officers
because it's dangerous.
That's in air quotes for people listening at home.
And I
that this board member disagreed with his point of view because he didn't vibe
with his personal experience as a police officer.
But that's anecdotal and frankly, marisco has statistics on his side.
And what does that mean? Kids can't read it.
It seems to me like this was an attempt to use power as a school board member
to suppress perfectly valid criticism of policing as an institution in America.
It's not dangerous for kids to be exposed for a point of view that might change
their mind on an issue, especially when it criticizes public servants.
You know, police have a lot of power.
What we should be telling kids is the government needs to be
scrutinized, including public servants such as police officers.
You know, I thought we were teaching kids to participate in a democracy here.
Like suddenly police are beyond criticism.
Calling it dangerous is a lame excuse, frankly.
Now, I don't want this to be all negative, so I want to talk about what
I want to see the school board do here on September 18th.
It's coming up. It's Banned Books Week.
Why not encourage teachers and librarians to talk to kids
about why certain materials are being targeted?
You know, the American Library Association has a list of the top ten books.
They're most challenged by year.
You know, we should be teaching kids that they have both the freedom
and the intellectual capacity to understand these issues
without the fear of adults coming in and saying, you don't really understand
this issue, therefore you're not allowed to read about it.
Of course they can understand the issue because they're already living
through these issues. And I've got my time. Thank you.
Thank you.
I see one virtual hand raised, so we'll go ahead and permission.
Jennifer Lehr, please.
Ms.. Leery, you should now be muted and go ahead
and start with your name and address for the record, please.
My name is Jennifer Lehr and I live at eight Spring Creek Manor in Hershey.
I'm a former law school professor and mother of an LGBTQ daughter.
And first I wanted to thank Brendon for his insightful comments.
I read the same gender cover to cover,
and I think it's an exceptional resource for our middle school library.
My daughter began her identity
when she was three, 22 years ago,
as open as communication between us was and continued to be
while she wrestled with her identity during elementary and middle school,
she did a lot of research on her own
and struggled for a long time without sharing her thoughts.
To have this book available to her
and to us to help navigate this period in her life
and give us tools to deal with others reactions would have been life changing.
There are four primary reasons I support the school
board's vote to keep this book in the middle school.
First, let's allow the librarians, teachers
and superintendent to do their jobs.
They are the experts.
Second, no parent or group of parents
should decide what other children can read or have access to.
In the age of the Internet and social media,
the protective urge to shield children may do more harm than good
if it fails to adequately prepare them for life beyond the classroom,
there are billboards in our area containing the sentence, quote,
Sex trafficking happens here.
Passages in the Bible that mentioned prostitute Ution
and the topics that some have expressed concern about
are ubiquitous in the news.
Third, in finding the book to be age appropriate,
the committee understood the importance of considering the book as a whole
rather than get distracted by individual sentences or passages.
Still, even if we focus on the sections of the book that received attention
at the last meeting those addressing sex work and police violence,
they are exactly the type of introduction to critical thinking
about culturally relevant materials and pedagogy
that is essential for students academic success.
Those passages provide definitions, explanations of related issues,
and an acknowledgment that the issues can be complex
and divisive, particularly as they intersect with concepts
of gender, race and other identifying features.
This complexity is not reason to move the book to the high school.
Nor is the inability of adults on the board to agree
on the meaning of certain passages.
A reason to conclude the book is not age appropriate discussion and debate
about significant issues are healthy and rarely present easy answers
for the
value of providing access to a book that validates the struggles
LGBTQ students face, provides resources and reassures them they aren't alone,
particularly those who feel they can't talk to their parents.
Must take precedence over the fears of parents who would rather
not discuss some of the book's passages with their children.
Censorship and book banning
reflect fear of perspectives other than our own.
One of the goals of a book like this is to present counter
perspectives and explore multifaceted issues.
As Dr.
Winslow explained, the overarching
and explicit messages from this book emphasize kindness,
connectedness, empathy and learning over fear and judgment.
And as the author says, quote, I'm
trying to represent those stories less told.
Show the people who need to be seen,
who need to see themselves represented, to feel less alone
and to teach different perspectives for those who are open to learning.
Fear difference.
You learn nothing.
Think about how brave those students who checked out this book had to be.
Parents should muster the same bravery
and discuss challenging subjects in books with their kids.
And if those parents choose not to have those discussions with their children,
we should not punish the students who need this information.
By depriving them of this exceptional resource.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in virtual attendance who would like to participate
in public comment?
Seeing no hands raised,
is there anything else for the good of the order?
The next Public Board of Directors
meeting will be held August eight, 2022, beginning at 7:00 PM.
Please refer to the district website
to register for virtual attendance as the meeting draws closer.
May I have a meeting?
Motion to adjourn this meeting, please.
Sal moves. Maria. Mimi second. Mike Rizzo.
All in favor.
Say hi. Hi.
Any say no.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:05 p.m..
Thank you.
Recording
the recording?
Yeah.