Yeah. All right.
I'd like to call the February 11th, 2019 Policy Standing
Committee meeting to order.
Let's go around and do a roll call.
I'm Tricia Steiner from the School Board.
Cathy Sticker School Board.
Beth Olmstead, Citizen Advisor.
Jason Riflettere Administration.
John Engle,
John Abell School Board.
And Mr. Sisk and Mrs.
Peyton and Dr.
Kumar have all
written in that they are unable to attend.
Hopefully, Dr.
Shah will be able to join us.
The first order of business is the election of a chair.
There's a new chair that has to be elected every calendar year,
so I'll open up the floor for nominations.
I nominate Tricia Steiner second.
Thank you.
I accept.
Are there any other nominations?
All right.
Nominations are close.
Can I have a motion to approve the nomination?
So moved. Second.
All those in favor say.
I, I. Opposed.
All right, great.
Thank you. Graduations. Thank you.
Okay.
And then the summary minutes are attached.
If anybody has any modifications that need to be made, please let me know.
We'll jump right into the revised and reviewed policies
recommended from SBA.
So the first set, I think we can review
our policy. 103
Nondiscrimination in School and Classroom Practices Policy.
103.1 Nondiscrimination Qualified Students
with Disabilities Policy 104 Nondiscrimination and Employment
Contract Practices Policy 248 Discriminatory Harassment
and Policy 348 Discriminatory Harassment
for Employees.
And Dr.
Shah just joined us. Thank you.
We just sorry about. That.
Trisha.
As chair.
Outstanding.
Thank you.
Jason, So did you want to review
the basic SBA recommendations?
Sure.
So in December, right before the winter break,
SBA released their new volume of of updates.
Part of this was nondiscrimination
policies, the ones that we just spent
quite a bit of time revising.
And if you look into the notes
section, they they include language that deals with training
with anyone who's investigating reports.
And then they also added
language to clarify the outcome of the investigation
and also what to do if a child is
or what role the parent plays
in in the investigation.
The only question that I had was
is the is the title
actually change and the title of the policy.
Like, does it go from nondiscrimination slash
discriminatory harassment or does it stay nondiscrimination?
They did not make a change.
I believe I believe it's still nondiscrimination
in school and classroom practice.
Okay.
I had a question
under the investigative report.
My question and concern is
it says that
the the green added area,
the complainant and the accused shall be informed
of the outcome of the investigation.
And prior to that, it talks about the report and what that includes.
So I'm assuming that those two individuals do not actually see the report.
They only see the outcome.
And do you know why is that?
I don't know.
Because it says
they will get it within a reasonable time of the submission of the written report.
So that's so vague.
So I'm just thinking like, what if I were somebody who complained
and of sexual harassment and then I get to hear the outcome.
I don't get to see the report in a reasonable time.
So do I have to wait three months or do I wait two weeks?
Why don't they
specify it like they specify other things in 20 days?
And I'll show you here lately, a lot of things in the news
where victims of abuse don't get to hear
as much as they should hear for their own benefit.
So I didn't like.
Why don't they get to hear more?
Is that because we're protecting ourselves
or there's a legal
I mean, we're bound by the Sunshine Act.
So is could could they ask for that?
I mean, I don't.
I, I don't know. I
if I, if I said something, I'd be making a guess.
I really. I have no idea.
Sounds like something we want to talk to our solicitor about.
Like, I was thinking,
could you at least say the complaint and shall be informed of the
details of the report?
I mean, I don't want to hold these up cause I know they were.
We've already been through these, but it is seems like
this is a big deal right now that victims who allege abuse, they can go
let's say it's in a court system
and then it comes back and they're not notified of anything.
They didn't know how long the abuser got.
And they find out maybe two years later or something.
And I, I just want to make sure that we're giving victims what they deserve.
So so I can share what happens with investigations, with with children,
youth or.
And what we get back is either the allegation was founded or unfounded.
So that's the same when I'm looking at that.
That's the same language
that that they're guiding us to to give people like you have what
your claim or your report was founded or where it wasn't or it was unfounded.
They don't really give us a whole lot more than that. Okay.
And are you okay with
is everybody okay with a reasonable time?
Because you have to had the report within 20 days, but then you don't
have to tell the victim or the accuser
anything for until a reasonable time.
And I know that SBA has attorneys who review this before they give it to us.
But I guess the only thing is that it could take
you know, the time is so arbitrary if you're doing an investigation.
So it might not be it might take longer for
for one investigation versus the other to find out all the information.
That she is after the report's done.
I thought I read this as the report.
It says what kind of report you do within 20 days.
And then this is how you tell them about the findings.
Within a reasonable time of the submission of the written report.
Yeah.
Okay.
So you're saying it's not the time period to do the investigation?
Yeah, that's done.
Yeah, I agree with, with, with Tricia that that could,
you know, depending on the faction or that could.
There could be multiple people that have to be interviewed.
But, but so, so now the report's been submitted.
Mm hmm.
Why isn't there a clock.
Exactly.
On letting the folks know about.
What happened?
That we have We now have a report.
Right.
And I think I think the reason and once again, I'm
not the authority on this is if we look at the next
if we continue to read that to the extent authorized by the by COPPA
or any other applicable law.
So I think if you put a timeframe on it, then it might be in violation
of a separate law or another applicable law.
So I think that's most likely why they want within a reasonable timeframe.
Once again, I can't say that for sure. Okay.
But that would make sense to me.
Further down in the appeal procedure,
it does save 20 days, specifically with getting a written response.
If you had appeal.
If you knew, if you appealed it. Right.
So if that's some sort of timeframe.
Seems like 20 days is a common timeframe in this document.
And going back to
Tricia's comment, the title of the policy
should be renamed Nondiscrimination Discriminatory Harassment.
Okay. So I'll make that change. All right.
Thank you.
Could we approve it as is, but also ask our solicitor
if we should put 20 days in there because it seems to be a common
set, a reasonable time.
And the Phyllis solicitor says, no, they put it in there for a reason.
Then we just leave it.
But it still goes forward.
Because this affects, what, five policies?
I think the language pretty standard in all of them.
Yeah.
And then the other thing it says that we give there are compliance officer
training and you're our compliance officer and this is just informational.
Do you do you get enough training by the district? Yeah.
So I go to an employment law seminar
every year by our solicitor's firm where they talk about investigation.
So you have an option to choose different sessions throughout the day.
But I always choose the one of one of the sessions
I always goes to go to is the investigation.
Okay.
So you feel competent to do this stuff?
Yeah. Okay.
And then I just want to ask, too,
because thank you also for laying out
and bullet points all of the changes on the.
That's I can't take credit for that.
It's just a copy and paste from.
Well, it's super helpful.
But one of the other questions I had related to that as it says, there's
a new legal reference to the US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights
Resources for Racial harassment has been added to the policies, but I couldn't
find that reference in any of them, so I don't know if I just missed it or.
I can take a look.
Okay.
Other than that, was there
any other comments?
Does everybody feel comfortable?
Um, approving these all together with one motion?
Yeah. Since the language is all common.
So it's
1103103.11042 48 and 348.
Yes. Okay.
Yeah, I'm fine with that.
Policy 348 Page six Line ten.
There's a typo.
Otherwise, I'm
okay with approving all this policies.
And why ten I think it should say.
And the green wording, I think it should say, for example instead of or example.
Thank you.
Mm hmm.
All right.
Can I have a motion then, to approve those?
One, two, three, four, five. Policies.
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
And one more thing.
I want to just question a clarification.
So I'm looking here.
I just was trying to find it
under one of the 3.1.
We're talking about a template letter
that will be in attachment to policy.
103 is that provided here or is that something that's elsewhere?
This is a letter apparently, that will tell people about confidentiality. Yes.
And Mr. Abbott, I included the attachment.
So it is an attachment.
Okay. Yeah.
So if the report for complaint site, we just need to put.
All that that's, that's we're talking. About letterhead on it. Yeah.
Good, good set form. Okay. Thank you.
And I will update
the title of the policies to include
discriminatory harassment. Good.
Thank you.
All right.
Um, all those in favor say I.
I opposed.
All right, Those five policies.
One, two, three.
1 to 3.110 4 to 48 and 348 have been approved
for the full board to
send a 30 day review.
Next items,
you can look at our policy.
222 tobacco, nicotine and Policy.
323 Tobacco Nicotine for employees and Policy.
904 Public attendance at school events.
Yeah.
So these policies used to be titled just tobacco.
They added nicotine and references to keep in line
with the changing times, especially during and vaping.
So they added language that covers that.
And so that's the big change.
That policy also affected policy.
904 Public attendance at school events.
Yes. So
I tell they just added that you can chew nicotine gum
and have a nicotine patch
that's not illegal on our campus.
If you're an adult.
Okay. Yeah.
So that that's that's Simmons only on 323
where tobacco nicotine applies to employees and 904 public attendance
which has the same sentence with by adults
only. Okay
and it does also specify
that employees do have to have a written order by a physician.
A physician.
Okay.
Since anybody else
have any comments or questions?
All right.
Can I get a motion to approve these three policies?
222, three, 23 and 904
to move to the full board for 30 day review.
Summary.
Second.
Is there any further discussion?
Oh, no. Oh, yeah.
John, are you good? It's in
my bedroom.
Oh, okay. Okay.
Is it working now?
John?
Okay, all those in favor say I,
I any opposed?
All right.
Those three policies have been moved to the full board
for a 30 day review.
The next policy on the list is policy
247 hazing.
And these are changes
to reflect the updates in the law.
Yeah, being a Penn State grad, I am.
I'm hopeful that some day we're not revising policies
based on situations that happen up at Penn State.
But this was a result of the incident up at Penn State
and major revisions in overall overhaul to this policy.
It could have probably just hit delete and the whole policy
and put in the new recommendation.
So, yeah.
It's a lot more details.
If the batteries die and for some reason it.
Does that sort protect her off by accident?
Yeah. Look,
did I kick it off?
Yeah, it's on now.
Okay,
John, you should try and try it.
Technical difficulties.
That.
I said.
Did anybody have any comments on the hazing
changes?
I don't.
John, are you good with the hazing?
Are you good?
John,
I have.
There are no comments.
Can I have a motion to approve the policy
to 47 to move to the full board for review?
So moved.
Second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor say I.
I opposed
great policy to 47 moves.
Next one is policy 249 bully
and cyberbullying.
Yeah, there weren't a lot of changes
in this policy
that are different than what we said.
They added definition to include school setting.
Also just encouraging people to use the
reporting form that reports
can be verbal or written.
They also added the word appropriate
preventative action instead of corrective action,
or simply just corrective action added a reference
to discrimination and discriminatory harassment,
and then retaliation added some language with retaliation.
The good news is it didn't really change a lot from what we had
our own personal
additions to the policy, which
which was nice to see.
I thought it looked good.
Just one typo. Okay.
Page two, line 12.
I think that should read
the board instead of keyboard.
Oh, great.
Thank you.
So, and under education it says it still says the district
may develop, implement and evaluate, but
it still allows for a may, not a mandate bigger than that, correct.
Okay.
If there are no further comments, may I have a motion to approve powers
to 49 to move to the full board for review?
30 day review.
Time moved.
Second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor say I.
I. Any oppose.
All right.
Policy 249 bullying cyberbullying moves to the full board
for a 30 day review.
So next under
unfinished business we have policy
103.3 nondiscrimination, transgender
and gender nonconforming students.
And this is a policy
that we've had on our agenda for a year.
So it's still good to get to this at 522.
So the policy itself, I think the last time we met
the committee was pretty comfortable with the actual language in the policy.
It was more so taking a look at the administrative regulations.
So there were a couple of questions
that the committee asked me to go back and check with our solicitor on.
So under the admin regulations I highlighted those.
One of the questions was assigned sex at birth and biological sex.
So that was a question that was was was raised, um,
there was a question with regards to
students age and unofficial records and name changes and the last one
had to do with, if I can remember correctly, overnight field.
So the language that I highlighted was the language from recommend it for our
from our solicitor.
So I'll start with overnight field trips that the district will attempt
but cannot guarantee to assign housing based on student request.
They believe that was a fair compromise
since we don't do that for for any other student as well.
It was consistent with how we treat all students.
Um, language as far as unofficial records.
So we change.
This district shall permit a student who is 14 years of age or older or parent
or legal guardian
to requested a change of name so that the student may be registered.
14 is kind of that that age guideline as far as schools are concerned. So
that's what we came up for.
As far as that, Oh, I almost forgot.
There was a question with regards to API way
and if our regulations were in line with PI and they are.
So that was that was not an issue.
And the ruling on that is really it's up to the principal's discretion.
If the principal says the student is a boy or the student is a girl in the student,
a boy or a girl.
And so that brings us up
to a sex sign at birth or biological sex.
And I have a response.
Um, from our counsel, and I may have asked them the wrong question.
So if I did, I, I apologize.
Um, so let me just get to
that particular one. Um,
so a sex sign at birth, the question was, should it be a sex?
My understanding kept was the question, was it should it be a sex assigned
at birth or a sign assigned sex at birth or assigned gender at birth?
And, um, our counsel said the most correct terminology would be a sex sign.
It assigned sex at birth and not assigned gender at birth.
Um, actually, I knew the words not used, but the correct would be reported.
Its was reported. Okay.
But I understand that that doesn't get used in
whatever it is is assigned at the time of conception
and just gets reported when the person's born you're
whatever you look like you are when you come out.
And then as far as the next question, I think was biological sex.
And they wrote that the what's written here is accurate.
I have a question about the
the 14 years of age or older for the name change.
So, um,
what does that mean
if, if the student's 14 years or younger
they can still request if the parent requests.
Correct that they the parent needs to be in agreement at that point in time?
Okay. Yeah.
And to my knowledge, we have not had a situation
where there's been disagreement, but there might be at home, but it hasn't
been expressed at least to two members of the administration.
And then the only other comment that I had and I'm sorry that I didn't realize this
sooner or earlier, but
the term g e t, the acronym for Gender
Expansive and Transgender students, which is defined
under R definitions, and then that g
t is used throughout the policy.
So I'm just wondering if we should change our policy name to gender expansive
and transgender students, if that makes sense,
instead of transgender and gender nonconforming students.
It's just to suggestion
they're both all encompassing terms.
Were the y you're the if you change it transgender is not.
First.
In right now we have nondiscrimination, transgender and gender.
If you change it,
what comes first is gender expansive.
Mm hmm.
And transgender.
And just for people sake of finding.
Things
to just have the transgender pop out.
First, I. I think so. Yeah.
Both say the same thing, right?
Yeah.
I mean, there's I mean, gender expansive versus
non gender nonconforming
are both all encompassing,
uh, terms, um,
I think they're both defined
as umbrella terms.
So I just, I just didn't want people to, um,
I just thought it was just since we, since the,
the administrative guideline represents Getty issues.
Um, but it's, but, but if, if people are
confused by that, they can
also just look through the definitions, which it's
also stated as an acronym that stands for Gender expansive and transgender.
So like I said, it doesn't really.
Pilot the actual policy,
doesn't talk about get it talking about
transgender and gender nonconforming students.
Right. Administrative guidelines.
So we want what are we name the policy is most important.
Yes. And we're going to attach the administrative guidelines.
Yeah. Yeah. We typically don't.
But this is one where, unless I'm wrong, the committee felt it was important.
Yeah.
People to know what those guidelines are.
Yeah. Yeah.
So I'm happy either way.
Like I said, it was just a suggestion.
I would keep it. Mm.
I do like having a transgender first.
Are there any other
comments?
Oh, I just wanted to say one thing.
I didn't understand a lot about this topic until I watched the documentary
by Katie Couric called Gender Revolution.
It's on Netflix.
And I think there it
she really did a good job of highlighting what happens.
Like when you say babies born at birth.
There have been some babies that are born at birth
with genitals that they didn't know if it was a girl or boy.
Right.
So they said a doctors, you know, back in the sixties or so made the decision.
And that one in the documentary, they made the wrong decision.
And so this person wanted to transition.
So and they had done a medical procedure, which
so it was it's pretty incredible to watch that because it's biology.
And yet and then culture gives you the your definition.
But they made a mistake.
And I think what they're finding is that they really can't do that.
The people just don't do the surgery. Wait.
I mean, it's it's it's upsetting because we're a very binary culture.
We wanted it to be black and white, boy or girl.
So, I mean, that really opened your eyes to
what has happened to some
people in our culture.
All right.
Can I have a motion then to move policy?
One of the 3.3,
uh, transgender and gender non-conforming students
to the full board for a 30 day review.
So moved.
Second.
All right.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor say I.
I opposed
all rights policy.
1 to 3.3 moves to the full board for 30 day review.
Next on the list is policy 221
dress and grooming.
Um and this policy was um
came to came up through because there was a lot of discussion
at the beginning of the school year at the middle school level, um,
from a lot of particularly sixth grade girls
that were experiencing a lot of anxiety over the, um, the dress code
and a lot of it was,
a lot of it was was fear that wasn't in other words, there weren't,
there weren't actually kids that were getting dress coded
or getting violations or shit to the office for dress codes.
But there was a lot of fear of it and it was a huge focus on it,
especially for a lot of girls in relation to how short their shorts were
and how tight their clothes were and things like that.
And for a lot of, you know, ten, 11 year old girls
that had never had to think about those types of issues before, it was
it was a hard adjustment to have to be aware of your body
and who else is looking at you and judging you based on your
growing awkward preteen body.
So and
it was brought to light at the middle school.
That meeting.
And it was discovered there that,
um, the somehow
over the years the middle school
administrative regulations that are in the handbook had morphed
a little bit differently than what was in the high school regulations.
So some of the immediate concerns were addressed by Mr.
Valentin, But, um, but um,
he also suggested that the School Policy Committee
take a look at the, at the policy because the principals, you know,
derive their guidelines from the policy.
So I thought it was worth taking a look to make sure
that we have a very gender inclusive policy.
That's um, because it was something that hadn't been looked at for, for
a number of years and a lot has changed in our culture since since then.
So these changes are changes
that you would like to see or these are not from SBA, right?
These are not from SBA and.
They're just making it more.
More gender neutral.
Um, and so that there's less of a focus on
what the girls are wearing as opposed to what the boys are wearing.
And um,
and there's also, you know, discussion about I think in our previous policy,
you know, we, we had really specifics about, um,
hats, hoods, um,
and like halter tops, spaghetti straps.
And those things are really, really specific.
And you know, the spaghetti straps,
halter tops, those things are only, you know, those are targeted at
typically girls clothing and then,
you know, hats, hoods, other types of head coverings.
You know, some people have misinterpreted
that as also, um, you know, girls that want to wear hijab
if they are Muslim even though our handbook
specifies that that's,
you know, an exception for religious observation.
But to have something that specific in the policy,
um, just seems unnecessary.
We wanted to have something more broad.
And that's generally what we want from policy, right?
We want the policy be general and the handbook,
the guidelines to be more specific,
so correct.
So now the middle school and high school handbooks match, correct?
They do, because I. Remember
like, for example, there's how how big the hole can be in your jeans and.
Yes, right.
So previously at the middle school it was any holes
So the kids couldn't have any holes.
No, none of the little like chairs in the jeans at all
were allowed at all or anything below the knee even
was was not allowed.
But the high school ones that it had to be bigger than a baseball.
Smaller than a baseball.
Oh yeah. No. Large.
Yes. Yes.
No, no. Larger than a baseball.
So now middle school says no larger.
Than a baseball. Right, right, right.
Um, and they were also going to change
their presentations to the fifth graders to make it more gender neutral
because some of the way that they had been, the practices that they were using
and the way they presented it was was not exactly gender neutral.
So they're just more aware of those things now on an administrative level.
But if we can, whatever we can do
on a policy level to reinforce that I thought would be a good idea.
So some of the
some of the additional lines
that I suggested were each schools under the
each school's dress code shall be gender neutral.
Schools shall not enforce specific attire based on gender.
All students shall be treated equitably, regardless of gender,
gender identity, I should say identity, not identification.
Um, sexual orientation race, ethnicity,
ethnicity, body type, size, religion and personal style.
Abstinence.
She'll be able to dress comfortably for school without fear of or
actual unnecessary discipline or body shaming.
Um, and then
the other information is just that the administration reserves the right.
The additional ones are just
stuff language that was in their previously, but just to move it down.
So that makes it more specific
where the attire contains violent languages or images.
The attire contains language or images depicting drugs or alcohol.
The attire contains hate speech, profanity, pornography, or creates
a hostile or intimidating environment based on a protected class.
So those are the basic
changes, and it just eliminates the
the very specific things
about cut off shirts, t shirts with which refer to drugs, hatch
hoods, bandanas, visors, and then halter tops to top sync tops shirts.
So it gets rid of the specifics and just keeps it
a little more basic.
Yeah, I see in the high school handbook
that they do have all the specifics.
I was just trying to find
the middle school one.
It's the same. I just.
I just matched them.
You found it?
Yeah, I just.
Yeah, The one thing I would say is the statement says exceptions
to this policy here at the discretion of the administration
effectively, then that becomes your policy.
The administration can decide on exceptions, therefore they can decide on
whatever they want to let the kids who are on a given day so
and I, you know, there's good and bad to that.
You know, anybody wants to be critical and say what's capricious
and arbitrary and, you know, but anyway, just don't point that out.
I don't have any objections to it. But
I like it.
I think it you removed what its the specifics are in the handbook
so we don't need that in the policy.
Right.
I think I agree. I agree because I think
the policy should be more general.
I guess as a point of clarification
are the the, the changes that we're making
near the end,
particularly number two
leading number one and three and four, maybe one and four.
And I and I appreciate your comment about making them general neutral.
Could could theoretically, could one in four
still be violative of the policy under certain circumstances,
or are we saying that one in four
now are acceptable under any circumstance,
or are we just trying to.
Get through on the policy and the last page?
Yes. Yeah, Yeah.
So we're deleting cut off shorts and halter tops as an example.
We're striking that.
Right? That is in the handbook, actually.
Okay.
So the handbook handbook example would control in that instance.
Were not allowed to wear. That's okay. Okay.
Good, good.
And my other suggestion would be thank you for clarifying.
Another suggestion would be
I think you have a covered, but I think we're we're saying all students
shall be treated equitably regardless of gender, gender identification,
sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, then I would say religion
or other protected category
as well as body type size and personal style,
because I think we're capturing all the protected categories there.
But I'm not certain that we have.
I just can't go through my mind all the protected category.
So I would say race, ethnicity or other protected
class as well as body type size
and personal style.
So why don't you just add our nondiscrimination
clause are a protected class clause
that we have one
that we have approved for all policies, right?
Yeah, that would be race, color, age, creed, religion,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.
Ancestry
should be national origin, ethnicity, marital status,
pregnancy, handicap, disability, genetic information,
or any other trait protected by applicable law and ordinance.
And in this situation, we want to include body type size and personal style.
Right. Okay.
We just say no.
Regardless of protected the protected status
and then body type size and personal style.
Or if you do not want to get too wordy,
you could just say will be treated equitably
regardless as defined in
and refer to that
definition as well as, you know, personal style.
And that way you don't have this,
you know, laundry list of.
Right
should be treated equitably as
as per the nondiscrimination
clause of protected classes.
Right.
That's what I say.
And then you guys have. And.
You're not trying to cover every right.
Does that work and it would people know where to find that.
Could you put a hyperlink even.
Yeah.
Or the other thing that we could do is maybe
just put it down at the very bottom of the policy like a notes.
Sure.
Right. That's fine.
That's a good idea.
So it's it's right there.
The only other
thought I had and I just don't know where it would fit or if you think
it's covered with the language that you have in here was
I had
thought of, you know, you have violent drugs, tobacco.
I was thinking of anything that's controversial or inflammatory.
Well, it says creates a hostile or intimidating tone.
I was thinking it might if you thought that was that type of.
Hate speech person.
Yeah.
I was thinking it would probably fall under some of those definitions.
Mm hmm.
So do we feel comfortable
moving this forward?
Yes. I can.
I have a motion
to move this to the.
Oh, I just noticed a typo.
A number five alcohol.
Mm. As an extra h.
There is an extra bench.
Thank you.
Missed that one.
All right, So can we have a motion to approve this?
The full board with the noted
changes regarding the nondiscrimination clause.
So moved.
Second.
All right.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor say I.
I opposed.
All right.
Motions moved,
and the next one is,
uh, protected class non religion.
Um, so going back to our list
of protected classes, um,
this had come to my attention
last spring when I went to a,
an all things diversity meeting.
Um, and it was about religion and
it was about, you know,
making sure everybody is,
has an understanding of each other so that we can get along in the world better.
But it also included,
you know, atheists, agnostics,
people that are not theists.
And the thing that really got me was at the end of the, um,
the end of the session, there was a question answer part, and there was
a student
who raised her hand
and I thought she was super brave because it was a room full of people.
And she asked how can she feel more
accepted at her school as an atheist?
And to me that was a little bit
heartbreaking.
And so I just thought that with,
you know, it is it is it is hard when you're not
a majority of of anything.
And I thought maybe there is a way that we can make people
that are non science non-religious feel
like they have a say here
and that their their views are important.
So I just was proposing
adding to that list religion, comma,
not religion.
I'm fine with that.
And there's a lot of the policies that are protected.
Jason listed those all for us.
Um, which all include that clause.
The nice thing is that we have to go through not nice, but
we're already reviewing five of those that we just
talked about earlier for the nondiscrimination
and discriminatory harassment, which include that clause. So
we could at least, you know, since we're already doing those,
it would at least be one easier
step to add that word in.
Does anyone have an objection to that?
No. No.
So do we want to move to add that
to all the policies that have the clause? Yes.
All right.
So can I have a motion then to move this to full board?
So moved.
Checking.
All right.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor say I opposed.
All right, motion carries.
And then the last thing on our list
is on policy seven and seven use of school facilities.
Mrs. Sick, or do you have an update on the ad hoc committee?
Yeah.
We had said we were going to give the policy committee an update
at this meeting February 11th, and we met one time for 2 hours to discuss
possible revisions and then the next meeting we had ended up being canceled.
But we've done some research.
I know Jason's done some research too, looking into the fees.
And when we waive them, when we don't see them and we need to meet one more time
and then give you our firm guidelines by April eight.
So we're not quite ready to give you the firm guidelines yet, but we're on our way.
That concludes my report.
Thank you.
All right. Well,
there is no public here available for comment
there.
Smart and stay at home in the snow.
So we will adjourn at 550.
I can't believe it.
And it's the next
the next policy meeting is in April.
Do you know that date off the top
of your head, Jason? I.
April eight, April 8th.
Thank you.
Next policy meeting is April 8th, 2019 at 5 p.m..
All right. Meeting a giant 550. Thank you all.