[Graham]: a substantive change from what the policy used to be, or the policy was just sort of silent on how and when and why do subcommittees meet. So this says that subcommittees meet when business has been passed to them by the committee, which is consistent with typical legislative action. And then other than that, I may have made some changes to like chairperson instead of chairman and those kinds of things. The cross references to other policies exist already and are part of the policy today. And I didn't make any changes to that. So the two substantive changes are just striking the names of those committees from the policy and clarifying how things can be discussed in subcommittee.
[Lungo-Koehn]: And if I may, from the chair, just number three, it looks like we're missing a word or two within the last sentence.
[Graham]: Yes, it looks like it should say subcommittees will. And I think it's important to note that the policy says that today. That is not an addition or a change to the policy. I know there were comments about that being confusing or like what that meant. I just want to point out that that is our policy today. So it is confusing, but it shouldn't preclude making the other changes that are listed here.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member Graham. I'm not sure if Mr. McLaughlin is in there. It looks like this meeting is not on public access yet. I know we're on Zoom. Live on YouTube. Okay. Okay, so we're live on YouTube and on Zoom and... Member McLaughlin and then Member Kreatz.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I did have a question on when the, will be provided with a list of its functions and duties to subcommittee by whom? Who's gonna provide that? The whole committee or is someone being tasked to provide the list of functions?
[Graham]: In number three, I don't know who does that. It is part of our policy today.
[McLaughlin]: Right, so I think maybe we can clarify who's going to do that, because I think that would be important as we're giving, you know, if we're tasking somebody with providing a list of functions and duties for the subcommittee, we should have an idea of who's going to provide those. It's number three, Mayor, the last sentence. And then, Mayor, I also have a statement from the Medford CPAC co-chairs that they asked me to read that they sent about an hour or two ago, because they're in route commuting and they don't want to do that from their car. So if that's okay.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Hold on, I have to ask. Before you do that, Ms. Wise, you've got that amendment. Okay. Can you just read that amendment to me one more time so I can.
[McLaughlin]: Oh yeah. I think that it will be provided with the subcommittees will be provided with a list of its functions and duties, but I don't know by whom. So I don't know if we want to do that as a committee now to decide by whom those functions and duties will be provided.
[Mustone]: I think in the past that the mayor had gone with what people thought were priorities and then named the subcommittees and then asked each of us which subcommittees we would like to be on. I know the subcommittees have changed by title with different concerns that have come up in the previous year. So I would say put the mayor for designating the names of the subcommittees.
[McLaughlin]: Not the names, this is a list of its functions and duties through the chair. So yeah, the names definitely, and the assignments obviously we already have through the chair, but if we want the chair to be providing a list of the subcommittee's functions and duties, I guess is what I'm asking, or somebody else, I don't know.
[Unidentified]: Member Kreatz and then Member Ruseau. Just your microphone.
[Kreatz]: Okay, sorry. I have the same question that Ms. McLaughlin had. I did look at our upcoming agenda for this evening, and there's a resolution that Mr. Russo has put on with the list of functions and duties that he put together, a draft that he's proposing to us in a resolution. So I was wondering, and I know it would take time to probably have another committee of the whole to discuss the functions and duties that are proposed in that resolution. You know, so I was wondering, you know, like for now, maybe we could remove that and put it back in so that we can, you know, kind of move forward with this resolution so that, you know, we can begin, you know, following the procedures of referring things to the subcommittee and going through scheduling that way.
[Lungo-Koehn]: So potentially removing the sentence, subcommittees will be provided with a list of its functions and duties.
[Unidentified]: I'm fine with that amendment. Okay, so Ms. Wise, you're going to strike the last sentence of number three. Member McLaughlin. Oh, sorry, Member Ruseau, then Member McLaughlin. I'm all set.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you. Yeah, this is from The co-chairs of the Medford Special Education Parent Advisory Council, which is tasked through mass law to advise the district on matters pertaining to special education. Special Education Parent Advisory Council CPAC statement. We represent and advocate for Medford students with disabilities and their families. The CPAC has concerns about the language that is proposed regarding school subcommittee meetings, specifically on how it affects the activity of the special education subcommittee. CPAC has advised and advocated with the school committee for many years, a forum needed to be created for a closer collaboration between school committee and CPAC. a collaboration which is not optional but mandated by law per MAS statute chapter 71B section 3. The parent advisory council duties shall include but are not limited to advising the school committee on matters that pertain to the education and safety of students with a disability, meeting regularly with school officials to participate in the planning and development of the school committee's special education programs. As a result of CPAC advocacy, the special education subcommittee was created in 2018 to fulfill this requirement of CPAC advising and collaborating with the school committee. Back then we had a different mayor, a different superintendent, and a different school committee. The special education subcommittee works differently than other subcommittees because it has a different role, that of collaboration between school committee, CPAC, and the special education department. Part of the assignment of the special education subcommittee is a dialogue with CPAC. An agenda set entirely by the school committee is no longer a dialogue. We are concerned regarding the proposed language that, quote, the subcommittee may only need to carry out business referred to it by a majority vote of the committee. Subcommittees will not need to conduct business brought to the subcommittee by other means or process. end quote. By the advising nature of CPAC, our mandated role is to bring business to the attention of the school committee. We are concerned of a circular situation in which the subcommittee cannot meet because there is no agenda and we have no agenda because we cannot meet. In addition, we are concerned by the proposed language that, quote, a subcommittee will be dissolved by the committee upon completion of its assignment, or it may be dissolved by a vote of the subcommittee at any time, end quote. The language suggests that a subcommittee can be dissolved for any reason, even if the subcommittee's assignment might be ongoing and still relevant. So many of you were not part of the history of the special education subcommittee. CPAC is asking the members of the school committee to reemphasize and remove the commitment of collaborating with CPAC for the benefit of the students and families we are representing. We hope everyone here agrees with us on the amount of progress that has been made in the district regarding disability-related policies since we started this closer collaboration. The impact of this collaboration was recognized and commended by DESE in their most recent special education review. We're asking that you maintain the role of the special education subcommittee, which is that of a continuous dialogue and collaboration between CPAC and the school committee, not only to fulfill the requirements of the law, but also Medford's recent commitment to family engagement and family school partnership. Thank you, Tanya Sullivan, co-chair, Alex Lorick, co-chair.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, member McLaughlin. There's member Rousseau.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. I'm a member of the Special Education Subcommittee. Well, I was in the last term. And I guess my question is, what policies have we actually I don't recall any policy discussion or dialogue or passing a single policy in the two years that that subcommittee has met. So I absolutely think that we need to have a whole lot of policy modification, but we're sitting here as a committee unaware that we have a partial sentence in our existing policy. that we have a policy that says stuff that none of us even knew about. So, I mean, I think it's our job as school committee members to, it's our number one job is to write policy. And if we're not writing policy and just talking about policy, we're not, we're just talking. Anybody can talk. We were elected to write, edit, change, delete policy. And I don't recall any policy coming out of that subcommittee, even though I wish there was. So I just think it's important to clarify that. I don't think that that letter around, that point in that letter about policy was just not accurate. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Member Kreatz and Member McLaughlin.
[Kreatz]: Um, yes, I wanted to talk about what, what, the way that I read it was, um, I, it seems like some of the subcommittees don't actually fit with the way the resolution's written because, you know, not every subcommittee is making policies. Like for example, the building and ground subcommittee meetings, we weren't meeting to set policy. We were meeting to talk about updates, like for the Mebita High School sign, hear information from the vocational principal about the great things students are doing, things like that. We were getting updates on the status of where things were with the generator or the boiler. We weren't making policy. And the same would be for the personnel subcommittee that I've been on. I mean, I think that, there's been a resolution on the agenda, you know, to have some descriptions of, you know, occupations, which, you know, could be some sort of a policy, but that's not everything that takes place in the personnel subcommittee. We've met to interview for new hires, things like that. So, you know, I think, you know, I can understand what the CPAC board is stating in their email because, you know, not every subcommittee is setting policies all the time. Yes, sometimes we will set a policy in the subcommittee, you know, occasionally for some, but not for all. It's not all about policymaking.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, member Kreatz.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you, Mayor. I think, you know, part of the discussion, too, is, you know, I guess, you know, what is policy? And to me, policy is organic. I have a master's degree in education policy and management from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and one of the things that I learned there was that policy was participatory. So we get feedback from our community on how we set policy. That is what the subcommittees are intended for, in my opinion. And there are some things that have been brought to the school committee that were recommendations for policy. Some of them were adopted, some of them weren't. Specifically, one of the things that we had asked for for several years as policy was that there be a subcommittee created for special education. And for three years, the CPAC, of which I was the former co-chair, so full disclosure, had asked for a subcommittee and that was being said as policy and that wasn't. So this is part of the discussion is that, you know, we also have what was created through our discussions and that did not need to go to policy because it was, they were, curriculum matters or other matters was a disability-related curriculum was created as a result of the special education subcommittee working with community members and the director of pupil services and Susanna Campbell to create a pilot program for a disability-related curriculum much needed in our district and also something that we had recommended previously as a CPAC to the school committee. which was not adopted, but specifically they don't have the purview over curriculum anyway, so this was able to go that way. We've also, the special education subcommittee also helped create professional development, again, working with community members and the school. And that's the whole point of this. It's back to family and community engagement and bringing community members together with school personnel, with school committee members to have an organic discussion around what policy should actually be and what should be recommended to the school committee, as opposed to just making our own policy and passing it here among the seven members. Thank you.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. I think that practice is certainly organic, and the policy should be black and white, printed, well, in our manual, and enforceable. If it's organic, then how can we hold the superintendent accountable to enforcing our policies that we pass? She needs to know in black and white what we said is our policy. And if we don't, then it's up to her and we can't come back and say, you didn't enforce the policy. I mean, we had a conversation here last year about the out-of-school suspension. And I had made a comment that was rebuffed by the assistant superintendent and probably the superintendent, I can't remember the details. And they were right, where I said, well, I'm sure if things are really bad, like somebody commits a murder, our policy doesn't have to take that into account. The superintendent will just do what she should do. And the point that they made was, that was made was that we should not be passing policy that intends for it to be violated in certain circumstances. That's just not, that's like a, you know, this isn't law, but you know, it'd be like passing a law that expects people to just break the law when it's appropriate or inconvenient. So I don't disagree that practice is certainly organic and practice should, When practice is changing, policy should be changed, but what policy is absolutely, in my mind, 100% not organic. Policy can certainly be written to be vague, where it can't be too detailed. Sometimes there's just no way to be as explicit as we perhaps would like. An example is the out-of-school suspension policy, where we left that except where The law requires, for instance, a suspension or expulsion or whatever we said. So, you know, we didn't go into the gory details. We sort of left a vague sentence that covered our bases. But I think that policy is absolutely not organic. It's on paper, and that's our job. It's our number one job, is to, if practice is not matching policy, and we like practice, It is our responsibility as a legislative body to write a motion, to change the policy, to match what we want it to. It is not to say, well, that's not what really happens, and just move along. I mean, that's why we have probably hundreds of policies that are out of date.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor? Yeah, and if I may, and I'll give you the floor back, just so I would understand it then, if we approved this change to the policy, I know member McLaughlin in her behavioral health committee, special education, they discussed like a buddy program and round table that. So would this deter that committee to be able to discuss, you know, great ideas, but not necessarily set policy?
[Ruseau]: Well, it would be a member could put a motion to send to the subcommittee a recommendation on whether to implement or how to implement. Implementation is definitely not our responsibility as a school committee, but whether or not to write a policy requiring that the buddy program exists in all of the schools and at what levels. you know, all that work around the buddy program in the subcommittee that didn't come to this committee, there was an implied expectation that the full committee already agreed. You know, the new sign at the high school, I think is gorgeous. I saw it again the other day when I was signing the bills. It's beautiful. I don't know that this full committee said to the subcommittee, hey, go do a sign. I think it started in the subcommittee. So all that work was done, all that like excitement, happened, it came to the full committee, and we were all essentially screwed. If we decided we didn't want to have the sign, we would have all looked like jerks because all the work had been done. The work should not get done if this committee does not, by a four vote majority, agree it should get done. That's like baseline. So doing work as members, we should all be doing work as members, and we do. But that's not committee work. That's not with the authority of the school system or with the spending of resources, the school system. Maurice comes to those meetings. Joan, sorry, Superintendent Edouard-Vincent comes to those meetings. Director of People's Services comes to those meetings. These are people who are all getting paid to be there. And none of us as a full committee asked them to do that. And to me, that's just, It's not that the work isn't good or that the work shouldn't continue. It's that we should be voting for work to happen before we spend money on the behalf of the taxpayers. None of us have that authority as individuals or as subcommittee chairs.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you. I want to clarify for the record that when I was saying policy is organic, what I'm saying is the process of setting policy is organic. It requires community engagement and staff engagement and administrative staff engagement, and that's part of the process in making policy. We do roundtable these things to see if policy needs to be set or not set or come before the subcommittee or not. Our specific goals for subcommittee, our requirements are to approve a budget, evaluate the superintendent, and set policy. So some of the things that are under the setting policy are also ambiguous. So I also feel like when we talk about things being in black and white or this is the way it should be or shouldn't be, those are subjective conversations. Law is subjective. It depends on what your priorities are. in terms of subcommittee meetings. And for me, my priority is building community relationships and building relationships with students with disabilities and staff members that are special education staff members and others, non-special education, behavioral health, mental health, sitting together, being able to discuss what is the issues, what are the issues that need to drive policy? Because how do we know the issues otherwise? Just by getting phone calls from constituents? I mean, that doesn't make sense to me. So I don't understand that. And saying a member can put together a motion to ask if we can have a conversation about a specific subject that may or may not lead to policy, that doesn't make any sense to me. And regarding the buddy system, I mean, the buddy, the Best Buddies program, that's only would become before the school committee if there was a cost, a directive cost involved. If there was something else that did not require a cost, if there was a donation, except if it was a donation over a certain amount, obviously it would need to be, but it doesn't necessarily have to be approved by the school committee as a policy issue. Maybe it does, maybe elements of it do, but how do we know that unless we're talking with the Best Buddies constituents, the special education teams that may or may not want Best Buddies in their school, the ETLs at the school, the families of persons with disabilities. And when we say, oh, we don't know about what happens in subcommittees, we have subcommittee minutes that we approve. Every single time a subcommittee meets that we go through the minutes, read them and see what's on them. And whether we agree with them or not, we have an opportunity at the next meeting to say that. So I just feel like this is more of an organic process and not one that should be dictated by black and white because relationships and relationship building is not dictated by black and white.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Member Kreatz.
[Kreatz]: So I just have a question and you know, you know, I understand like, you know, what you want us to do. Like, I understand that. Um, so like, let's use my example. Okay. I am the, um, building and grounds chairperson and, um, we're in this new policy just, you know, for the future, we were in this new policy and, you know, I got some emails from some members and, you know, we've been hearing for years that there should be a sign in Everett high school. All right. So, um, it's not a policy, but I could, and this is just, this is what, is this what I could do? Like I could then write a resolution that says I'm making a resolution that, um, I, schedule a building and ground subcommittee meeting so that we can discuss options for a sign from Everett High School and then it would go, I would do the add the agenda button or link and I would send it off and then it would go on the agenda at one meeting and then here we would make the full vote if the body wanted to. have that meeting, they would take that vote. If they didn't, it wouldn't pass. So, and I guess like going forward in the future, you know, some of these subcommittees are non, they're not always making policy, you know? So, I mean, I can understand Ms. McLaughlin's points. So I was thinking something, you know, over the past couple of weeks. I don't know if it would help in any way, but I think it might if there was, A lot of things I've been looking at have exceptions. There can be exceptions to the rule, and maybe there could be an exception that, and I don't have the exact, perfect wording, but in some subcommittees, they can have regular scheduled meetings per year, XX. Let's say I don't have the perfect number or anything either, but I know in my meetings, I've only had two or three the most. So like for some subcommittees, they should plan to meet four times per year or more. three times per year, you know, and it doesn't necessarily have to list the subcommittees because that can be part of the functions and duties once those are determined, but we're not there yet. So, so that was just something I was thinking about that, you know, we're, the rule is so specific for the policy making subcommittees, but it's just, you know, it's, it has to be a little bit broader to, you know, to go into more depth for the other subcommittees, cause it doesn't really work for all of them. That's what I think. You know, and I did, you know, reach out and talk to Ms. Van der Kloot and she did explain to me that this is how the policy was, you know, before I came on board as a school committee member. And then things kind of shifted away and we started doing things. the other way, which is the way we've been doing them. So she did explain it to me that this is how it was. And so, and I guess now I'm trying to figure out if this is how it was, and I never knew what it was like, you know, what do I do? And then I was talking to Ms. McLaughlin at one point, and it seemed like our subcommittees had just like defunct because we never had them. And then it just kind of set into me, I was a new subcommittee member, a new school committee member, And I didn't know that I was supposed to refer things to subcommittee. So I just, we didn't have them, honestly. And then we did every once in a while Mia would get a lot of emails and then we would get in touch with the mayor and then the mayor would then put it on the agenda. And then we would have the subcommittee. So then I thought it through and I'm like, oh my God, that's what we did do. But I didn't know because it was never written down. Like you said, we never had anything written down, none of us. you know so now we're we're trying to put something together um and i think we do need something but at the same time it's not going to work for every solid you know every subcommittee you know there can be exceptions um maybe i can just i i think it can work because number three it doesn't say policy on here it says um carry out business so for you it would be
[Lungo-Koehn]: be resolved that we explore a new sign at the McGlynn Elementary School, and then this committee would vote, yes, let's send it to the subcommittee on building and grounds, and that's where it would be discussed, you'd get quotes. So it would work, because it doesn't specifically say policy. So I think that that helps a little bit. And I think you had it exactly right. When you started to speak, you would just put it on the, as a resolution, you'd get four members to support it. It would go to your committee and then come back for a final vote. Member Graham, then member McLaughlin.
[Graham]: Yeah. And through the chair to member Kreatz, I think that's exactly how it would work. And I think the benefit of doing it this way is that in the example of this sign, I think we're going to talk tonight about the fact that we're at a real crossroads with the Medford High building. And I mean, honestly, the community has been talking about that for many, many years. And I do think without a plan, there's always this question of, is it worth spending this money right now? And I think on the one hand, I generally feel like it is worth spending the money right now to do the things that make the students there right now have a better educational experience. And maybe that's a sign, but we also don't have an endless supply of money and we don't get to make decisions about all the things that we think that they should have. Sometimes there are choices. And if that came before this committee, we could have had a dialogue about it and provided some instruction or some like guidance to the subcommittee so that then the discussion could be productive and not sort of have the potential to like increase the level of expectation about what we're going to accomplish with this sign. only to have it come back here and for people to say, Oh no, that's too, like, that's way more than I think we should spend on a sign. So I think the benefit of that is like this community, this committee gets to have some dialogue before we send you off to spend your time and your energy and John McLaughlin off to spend his time, his energy and the superintendent and all the people who go to the meetings and like setting expectations or implying to the community that we're going to do something if we actually never intended to do that thing. So I do think Having that collaboration discussion here is really important. And I would say to the CPAC, I always want to hear what the CPAC has to say. I enjoy when they come and present annually to this committee. And I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a committee like that to have a meeting on an annual basis to talk about what the CPAC's goals are. I think it should tie to the significant presentation and all the effort they put in here, but the timing of that is certainly up to the chair of that committee. But I do wanna hear from the CPAC before we go off and spin up something in subcommittee that maybe doesn't have the support here. So I think A, this committee really does wanna hear from folks like the CPAC and the DELAC and all the other community groups, and B, you know, I want to see us understand that we have the option. We would always have the option to put a resolution on to say, please go meet with the CPAC and ask them what their goals are for the year and what they want to see or what their problems of, you know, what are the problems that they think are most pressing? I think that's perfect work for subcommittee. I just don't think it should happen without this committee having eyes on it first.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Member Graham. Member McLaughlin.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you, Mayor. I would agree that there needs to be guidance on the subcommittees. When this was first proposed to the school committee, that's accurate. We were told initially that there would not be a subcommittee of special education because there were already so many subcommittees and many of them were defunct. And so there was no structure around that. That was the whole point, that there needed to be a special education subcommittee because there was no structure around the committees that existed in the in the school committee prior to that. And, you know, I'm looking back to the letter that the co-chairs wrote and the quote that they said, a dialogue set by the school committee is no longer a dialogue. And I think that's the point is that CPAC came to school committee because they wanted to have an ongoing dialogue with some members of the school committee to be able to move things forward, to have the director of pupil services participate in that process, to have family members participate in that process, to have students with disabilities participate in that process so they could see the process of setting policy and come to the school committee at the end of the year and bring policy forward. Perhaps the school committee, the CPAC meeting needs to happen at the beginning of the year and they can discuss what some of their interest and goals and what have you are, but then that's not a conversation. That's them coming forward, you know, at a podium, standing in front of folks to tell them, you know, to again, ask to be included. And I don't feel like this is inclusive. I feel like we really need to think about we later on tonight, we're having a meeting on like 18 pages of rules that are being proposed, this is among them. And I think we really need to think about how are we actually involving our community members in this process and what that is and, you know, looking at what the rules were previously, looking at what the proposed rules are, not by, you know, by you know, motions being moved forward, but by a collaborative process. So again, I mean, obviously, I would also say if people are interested in the CPAC and what their views and positions are, then, you know, they meet monthly and have all sorts of presentations. And, you know, part of the problem was that school committee members didn't come to those meetings. A few have. over the, in the years, but a lot of times they don't. And I think that's important if people really want to build relationships and build dialogue, but that hasn't happened, which is another reason that the subcommittee was created. So again, if I don't have the votes, I don't have the votes, but I want to go on the record as saying that I think that this is not inclusive and I do not think that this is engaging families at all. I think it's actually the opposite. And I think that, you know, as the CPAC letter stated, that the Department of Education and DESE actually lauded our district this year in their memo out to the community on what a great relationship building experience has happened with CPEX. Cause that's not often the case in many districts because special education and special education needs and issues are complicated. And there can be a lot of sort of issues with families and districts and, you know, building relationships is really how we move things forward. And so I don't think Desi was wrong in putting that forward. I think it was a good point. I'm concerned that this will, affect that relationship.
[Unidentified]: And I don't want that to happen.
[Kreatz]: Yes. So, um, I know I mentioned, you know, adding an exception, you know, to this, um, resolution, you know, that some subcommittees, you know, as needed may have, you know, three you know, scheduled subcommittee meetings, which would be like at the beginning of the year, the middle of the year and the end of the year, so that, you know, we could hear some feedback from, you know, like, for example, the CPAC meeting, which is, you know, I think that for that subcommittee, you know, it seems like You know, I remember when Erin had taken on that responsibility and she took it upon herself and she held those meetings and invited everybody to those meetings and it was very productive and the results were shared and it was a good working relationship. I mean, if three is too much, you could start with two and then add, like, that's why I was thinking of adding it as an exception. You know, I'm saying for my committee, I don't think I'm going to have a problem with my committees adding it as a resolution. But, you know, when I think about Ms. McLaughlin's committee, you know, you know, that that seems a little bit difficult because you know, we have been having them regularly scheduled just the past year, like, you know, on a regularly scheduled calendar event. So it just seems very abrupt. We're going to, you know, discontinue that. And I understand that, you know, it's involving a lot of personnel and their time. And I understand that, you know, that the time is associated with the monetary value, you know, because they're spending the time at those meetings. But, you know, if they're informational and we're sharing information and, you know, we're receiving information from the public, I think it's beneficial to continue with the meetings, you know, if, it was agreeable with all the individuals involved on the specific number of meetings per year. And that's why I say like to start, have two. I mean, I'm just thinking and I'm getting ahead of myself, but like reading the policies that were set forth by Mr. Russo. In his policy, one of the mentions having two annual meetings with, with, um, city council. Okay. So, so that's specific in his rules and functions. Why can't we have something specific in the rules and functions specifically pertaining to the CPAC, you know, um, and, and their disability, you know, committee, the behavioral health special education. You know, I mean, I know that I'm kind of getting ahead of myself because, you know, we are at the beginning stages of writing documents and, you know, it's the first time we're doing this. We've never done this. So we want to do it and we want to do it right, you know, to make it fit for everybody. And some of them is just not going to fit for everybody. And I think as needed, that's why if we put an exception and we don't list them, because there might be an exception and, you know, maybe those subcommittees just, you know, it's better for them to have the regular meetings, but not necessarily every month. That's just an idea.
[Unidentified]: Mayor.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you, through the chair. Thank you, Member Kreatz. I appreciate the willingness to negotiate. I think that's always a good, a good characteristic and a colleague and a school committee member and other politicians. And I think negotiation is a really important part of the process. And I think, you know, I question whether all or nothing is in fact, again, a collaborative process. So I'm certainly open to some discussion around negotiation on the topic, but I also did want to mention that In addition to the CPAC relationship with the school committee and the special education department, and it being recognized by DESE. We also had people from other towns coming to meetings and commenting about the work that was happening in the district regarding special education. Most recently at the last CPAC meeting, which was recorded, that was on disability awareness. And several other towns are asking the Medford CPAC to come to their town and talk about how we work with the district and how we collaborate with the district. And again, I feel like we should aim to move forward and take pride in our work and look to create an environment when relationships can thrive. So I appreciate the attempt at a middle ground in negotiation. Thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: So is there an amendment to try to reach a middle ground so we could set the policy?
[Kreatz]: Yes, I would like to make an amendment that we have an exception to the rule that allows for subcommittees as needed to have scheduled you know, let's just say for the purpose of the document to have two or three scheduled subcommittee meetings per year. And honestly, I don't think some of the committee members are going to do that, but I do think that some of the committees are going to need it. Like I can see right off the top, the personnel, we don't need something like that for the personnel. We, we hardly meet about that. So it just, it makes sense for some, I mean, the rules, it's always going to have policies. That's a policy making, subcommittee. you know, the engagement communication that had some policy in it, but then it also had discussion and it had topics about afterschool pay and things like that. So in the curriculum, that would be policy, you know, so like most of them are going to be, you know, it's going to be easy to follow the resolution to add them on the agenda, but then for the committees that don't, I think it's, you know, fair to, Let me look at the new subcommittees. Sorry, I was looking at last year's. Some of the newer ones, diversity and equity, I think for those to start with in the strategic planning, I think to start with, they would have to maybe have at least one or two meetings per year. They're newer committees.
[Lungo-Koehn]: So like one or two meetings per year, up to one or two meetings per year to do like listening and listening sessions, discussion, idea building. And then it would just be an extra step because then you'd have to take your ideas to the floor to then go back to committee and set policy.
[McLaughlin]: potentially if the discussion, you know, creates ideas for policy and that that's what's needed. Yeah. I mean, some of the things don't fall under our purview.
[Lungo-Koehn]: So I know that- So if you have like an hour where you're discussing how can your committees discussing like some sort of a, like a buddy system and to be more inclusive, you brainstorm ideas, come up with the idea, bring it back to the committee on a Monday night and say, this is our idea. How does the committee feel about it? We love it. Go back to committee, set policy on that one idea, and then come back for a final vote.
[McLaughlin]: Well, I don't know. I mean, that's the whole point we're talking about. It's about bringing what we need to set policy. You know, what we would bring to the school committee is asking requests for setting policy. So what I hear you saying now is that we have the discussion and then we have to come back to the school committee and say, was our discussion okay? Can we further that discussion regarding policy? And again, I don't know. I know the director of people's services is here and I guess I would love to know what their position is because I know that They had been meeting for a month at a time, specifically the subcommittee, specifically because they had been building traction around some issues, particularly disability awareness that had been a five-year project that was finally getting some traction. And I wouldn't disagree that a monthly schedule can be a little bit taxing on folks, especially like last year when every subcommittee suddenly had a monthly schedule for reasons that are so unclear to me. And so there were, you know, three, four or five meetings a week in addition to our own meetings, which was really tricky, but, you know, through the chair and the superintendent, if the director of people's services would be willing to share what the experience has been with the subcommittee and whether that's been beneficial to the district or whether it's too time consuming or what have you, I know that we'd love to hear from administration as well. Thank you.
[Edouard-Vincent]: So I truly value our partnership with the CPAC. I wanna open and say that I do believe we have an outstanding relationship with CPAC and the Medford Public Schools is definitely committed to trying to meet the needs of all of our students, those students with disabilities and those that may be having any behavioral health challenges. I would just say, in terms of all of the subcommittees, when we were looking at the totality of the amount of meetings that we were having, that it really was taxing. I mean, everyone has a certain bandwidth and capacity for the work. And I do think that for some of the meetings, we had to call on the same representatives multiple times. So I do think that that can, you know, via balance. So, you know, as you're having this discussion about maybe how much is too much and how much is enough, I think the meetings should happen, but they should happen not necessarily on a monthly basis, depending on what it is. And when I would think about the way we had operated, being able to give the other members of central administration almost like a format or a template in advance, So really in January, but to be able to say to someone, we'll be presenting in March, and to give them time to be able to say this is what the topic is going to be, if it's something that needed to be presented to the entire committee. I know the proposal is to move from six meetings to nine meetings. I can just share that that did elevate my blood pressure because I was surprised to see that we increased the number of subcommittees as opposed to potentially decreasing it. I have spoken with other colleagues in different districts and they seem to have three or four subcommittees. that kind of have a genetic title, but they will meet on an as-needed basis.
[McLaughlin]: So they're- Yes, that was actually a point of information. That was a follow-up I wanted to have. I didn't think we were getting to the names of the subcommittees yet or the description, I mean, the division of the subcommittees, but I'm also unclear on some of the divisions of the subcommittee. Like, I don't understand, for example, one is people services, and then we have a separate one that's special education and behavioral health, and that special education and behavioral health are people services. So I didn't understand what the differentiation there was. So I was trying to, I would love some explanation on that. And I agree, like if you're subdividing subcommittees, then that can be problematic. And I couldn't agree more that there were far too many meetings last and frankly, there were far too long meetings last year, of which I hope tonight doesn't become one, because the meetings that were last year as well were really taxing, and again, on all of us. So I'm not sure, I mean, I feel like this is a separate issue than the proposed subcommittee assignments. I mean, I think we should talk about the proposed subcommittee assignments, but I'm speaking specifically to the, what was the special education and behavioral health subcommittee? I don't know what people services subcommittee is because special ed and behavioral health is under people services. I don't know.
[Edouard-Vincent]: So I did not, these were recommendations made by the members to the chair for suggestions for the sub committees. So I was not involved in that process at all.
[McLaughlin]: Yeah, I would just love some, enlightenment around those when the chair's ready, because I don't understand. But I get it when you're saying there's now one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine subcommittees, and you don't want meetings every month for nine subcommittees. I know, we had those last year. It was crazy, it was far too much. And we worked really hard to make sure that we were on time with ending ours and had an agenda ahead of time and what have you. So I couldn't agree more. But I think that this is obviously a conversation, right for conversation because, and we're not, the community might not realize this, but you know, we're not able to have these conversations obviously based on open meeting outside of the school committee with more than, you know, three individuals of the seven. So this hasn't been discussed previously, at least not with me. So I would love some elucidation. Thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor. Yep. We have seven minutes to discuss the actual agenda. So member Graham.
[Graham]: So I think to Member Kreatz's point, we should add to number three, a sentence that says subcommittees may meet at the beginning of each school year to conduct one meeting where a listening session with members of the community occurs. And then I would make a motion to approve this as amended.
[Unidentified]: Second. Motion for approval by Member Graham as amended.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Once by Member McLaughlin to strike the last sentence in paragraph three. Once by Member Graham to add an additional sentence about a listening session at the beginning of the year on up to each subcommittee. For approval by Member Graham, seconded by Member Ruseau.
[McLaughlin]: Clarification though, one listening session is what is being proposed.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Motion for approval, if we could call the roll.
[Unidentified]: Oh, that's me. I'm so sad.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yep, take your time.
[Unidentified]: It's five minutes.
[Kreatz]: Before we take the vote, could I just mention just on the amendment. have one meeting per year listening session and maybe and if needed, you know, to have an additional meeting if necessary, something like that.
[Graham]: I, I am not in favor of that amendment to the motion that I have on the floor.
[Lungo-Koehn]: But the beginning, I think, leaves it open-ended, so the beginning of the year could be January, February, March, April. I mean, because there are a number of committees, and I'm sure not all of them would have listening sessions.
[Kreatz]: And it's not going to list the subcommittee, so it's not going to exclude any subcommittee. It may, if they want to.
[Lungo-Koehn]: It may do it.
[Kreatz]: It may or may not. Yeah.
[Lungo-Koehn]: It would be a way to brainstorm ideas, to get proposals that you want to bring to the committee, to hopefully get a majority vote, to then discuss policy, go back to the committee and discuss either the business or the policy. Roll call.
[Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Member Haynes. Yes. Yes. Member McLaughlin. No. Member Mustone. Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Ruseau. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The policy passes. Is there a motion to adjourn?
[McLaughlin]: Mayor, actually, what about these proposed subcommittee assignments?
[Lungo-Koehn]: I don't see that on our agenda.
[McLaughlin]: But it's on our list of, it was included in the subcommittee, so. Do we have to put it on the agenda for the next session then before we can actually have?
[Lungo-Koehn]: The school committee maintains a set of standing subcommittees during each term. It may establish special subcommittees for a specific purpose to make recommendations for committee action or policy.
[Graham]: Mayor, the agenda does say that we're discussing the structure and function, so I think it's reasonable for us to talk about the structure of the assignments.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin.
[McLaughlin]: Oh, I'm just asking, I don't know the difference between the people services and the special education and behavioral health subcommittees.
[Unidentified]: Mayor. Member Graham.
[Graham]: It's my understanding that the way that that the subcommittee works today is there are actually two subcommittees really happening in one. One is special education and one is behavioral health. And they're two different topics that do sometimes bring different folks to the meetings. And I am gonna make an assumption that really just special education should be struck from the second one, The first one is pupil services, which obviously includes special education, and the second is behavioral health. And then there are two, and then they can deal with whatever topics are appropriate for their own areas.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you. I think we should define what pupil services are and what falls under that category because it is special education and behavioral health. And I really think that it's not advisable to strike special education from the subcommittee name.
[Graham]: So could we just remove pupil services as a subcommittee?
[Lungo-Koehn]: If that's a motion on the floor.
[McLaughlin]: I would make a motion to remove people services as a subcommittee.
[Lungo-Koehn]: There we go. Second. Motion to remove people services as subcommittee by member McLaughlin, seconded by member Rousseau. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Lungo-Koehn]: All those opposed? Okay, people services is struck from Medford School Committee proposed assignments. Motion to adjourn by Member McLaughlin, seconded by Member Mustone. All those in favor?
|
total time: 6.05 minutes total words: 982  |
total time: 4.79 minutes total words: 746  |
total time: 17.83 minutes total words: 3339  |
total time: 0.4 minutes total words: 68  |
|
total time: 12.25 minutes total words: 2026  |
total time: 6.06 minutes total words: 947  |
total time: 2.64 minutes total words: 358  |
|