[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. Good evening, everybody. School committee meeting on Monday, June 12th, 2023, which is when it was posted. Today's the meeting date. Oh, geez, I pulled up the wrong agenda.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Hold on a second.
[Edouard-Vincent]: Same agenda. We just changed the date. So Monday, June 26th, it was posted for Wednesday, June 28th. And the time change that said for people.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Oh yeah, thank you. Thank you. Vincent I knew I read the agenda was fine but okay. Special meeting in the Medford school committee, please be advised and on Thursday the 28th of June, 2023 from four to 6pm there will be a special school committee meeting held via remote participation on zoom the purpose of the special committee meeting will be to attend to continue business and meet an executive session to conduct strategy and discuss legal matters meeting can be viewed through Medford community media Comcast channel 15 Verizon channel 45 at 4pm participants can log or call in by using the following link or calling number. there is actually no call and it's just Zoom tonight. So additionally, questions or comments can be submitted during the meeting by emailing medfordsc at medford.k12.ma.us. Those submitting questions or comments must include the following information. Your first and last name, your Medford Street address, your question or comment. First up is roll call, Member Ruseau.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Member Graham. Here. Member Hays. Here. Member Kreatz. Here.
[Jim Lister]: Member McLaughlin.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Here.
[Jim Lister]: Member Mustone.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Here.
[Ruseau]: Member Ruseau. Here. Mayor Longo.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Present. Seven present, zero absent. If we could all please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have continued business. First up is 3A, recommendation to approve the Medford Public Schools bullying report. I'm gonna pass it over to Member Ruseau. Thank you, Mayor.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. The bullying, excuse me, the rules and policy subcommittee has met five times over the course of the past winter and spring to update our bullying prevention and intervention policy, plan policy. This proposed policy represents many hours of work in and out of meetings, drafting and redrafting language, researching how other school committees have written their policies, reading and rereading the law. And I am proud of this work product before us tonight. I see all policy as a statement of direction for our district leadership. Policy is not written in stone. This policy is not perfect. No policy ever is. Therefore, it is imperative that policy be regularly reviewed and based on actual outcomes, it should be changed so that the goal of the policy can be achieved. I want to thank the members of the Rules and Policy Subcommittee. Member McLaughlin, Member Graham. I also especially want to thank Vice Chair Graham for her work to generate a new policy document rather than trying to transform our old policy document, which is how we tried to make that go. But without her effort to sort of hit the blank page and start over, I think we would still be having meetings on this policy. I also want to thank our administration and principals that took the time to share their experiences and insights, especially Principal Tucci of the Morgan Middle School and Assistant Superintendent Peter Cushing. And finally, I'd like to thank the community members that were at every one of these meetings, especially Nicole Bramley, who single-handedly forced this policy into the crowded policy space of the school committee and helped us to understand from the caregiver perspective what was right and what was wrong with our policy. I am deeply sorry that this attention to this policy required an incident that we all know too well. I am hopeful that this new policy will allow the Medford Public Schools to move forward with clarity on bullying prevention and intervention. I am also hopeful that this drastically improved policy provides some resolution to Ms. Branley and to those who have experienced bullying, and in many ways it harms our community and our students we serve. And with that, I'd like to make a motion to amend line 261 to remove the random period that is sitting in between a couple of words.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Second.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to amend by Member Ruseau, seconded by Member Graham. Roll call, please. Actually, before the roll is called, member Kreatz, you have your hand up.
[lxGqRLo36-s_SPEAKER_00]: Oh, I just had a question on one of the sections in the policy, but I can wait until the roll call for this one.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, I'll call the roll on this one amendment.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Member Graham? Yes. Member Hays? Yes. Member Kreatz? Member Kreatz? Yes, I'm muted, sorry. That's good, thank you.
[Jim Lister]: Member McLaughlin?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Bestone?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Rissell? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Amendment passes. Member Kreatz, then Member Hays.
[lxGqRLo36-s_SPEAKER_00]: Yes. First, I wanted to say something similar to what my colleague said, and I'll just keep it simple. Thank you to the entire committee for all your work on this document and to all the community members and everybody who helped work on this comprehensive procedure. So I just had a question or maybe some clarification on number 11. First, I had noticed that One of the terms that's in the section on page 14 isn't listed in section 11 on page 12. The word that's used in section 11 is is the word target. Typically, I've seen the word victim in policies, but I don't know if this is something different with language, with what was discussed in the committee where I wasn't involved in that. That was one of the questions about that particular word choice. Then the other one was in the same section. I was a little confused about the section because it says, In the section it says I understand that the caregiver won't be informed of the disciplinary actions they have no problem with that. Then it mentions that the caregiver. each other as a caregiver. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading something else. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Do not share the names of the disciplinary actions with the third party. That I understand. Then it says, caregivers of targets do not have the right to know the name of the aggressor. Caregivers of the aggressor do not have the right to know the name of the victim. So I was just curious about this and had questions because victim and or the aggressor are students in their minors. I was under the impression that the caregivers would be informed of the names because their child or their dependent, the person they're taking care of, would want to talk to them. And the caregiver would have to assist or help and support their minor, whomever it may be, person they're taking care of or they have custody of. So I was wondering if somebody could provide clarification about those two things. Thank you.
[Ruseau]: Mayor, you can answer those.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: Thank you, Member Kreatz. Target is used in the law in a bunch of places, but I would agree that Target is not in the definitions. So, looking at the law right now, they don't have a definition for it. They have definitions for all kinds of things, then they use words that they don't have definitions for. So I would agree that we would want to amend it to have some kind of definition to describe what target means. I would say that I don't think I can do that on the fly right now. So I mean, we want I would certainly be happy to put a motion on for our first meeting in September to amend the policy with a definition if that's acceptable to Democrats.
[lxGqRLo36-s_SPEAKER_00]: I was thinking, I know in the definitions in, I don't have it open, I'm just looking at my notes I put together here, was it said something like the aggressor, the similar term would be a perpetrator. So, you know, it was like in, you know, in brackets at the end of the definition, maybe something like that could be worded under victim, you know, because that's where I think, you know, that's where I think you want to put with the Individual is labeled as a target because there was perpetrator and aggressor were similar terms mentioned, and then maybe victim and target individual, part of the same definition as victim or underneath it, kind of in the same sentence. But yeah, that's fine for September.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Cressy, is that your last question?
[lxGqRLo36-s_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so I still didn't get an answer on, you know, the question about, so if like my child's bullied, and I know, because my child has talked to me, let's just say in hypothetical, and I know who the student is, and my child has come to me and they say, I've been bullied, and this is the person, well then, I'm gonna wanna talk with my child. I mean, I think it would be difficult if the caregiver or the parent or guardian doesn't know Whom, you know, is the person involved with the conflict, you know, whatever it is, because, you know. the parent, in my mind, I was thinking the parent or caregiver can look out for their own, you know, child, you know, care person that's in custody with them, you know, just, you know, if they're out and about, you know, let's try to, you know, let's just try to go over here, you know, you know, I'm not sure like if somebody could explain maybe if there was a discussion about that, I totally understand that the disciplinary actions wouldn't be given out. I know at one point, just a very simple example in elementary school when my son was bullied for lunch money. the two students were brought together by the principal. We were called in so that both parents could have a discussion. This is very early elementary school, but so that everybody was brought together so that we're all on the same page that you don't want to do that. If you need money for milk money, we'll try to set up a plan or we'll work with you and your parents, something like that. I don't know if this is something new in the policy or if this has always been in the policy and I'm just not aware of it.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you very much, ma'am.
[Ruseau]: understood, but it's also the law that this information cannot be handed down. And that's a pretty old law at this point. Whether a principal, I mean, this is in relation to bullying though. And so I don't know what, at the early elementary level, how that is handled. I assume it would be handled a little differently than it does for high school seniors, but I don't envision that this restricts any of that in any other way other than making it clear that, in case there was any confusion, that you can't get a phone call saying, your child was bullied and here's the name of the kid that did it. That's a clear violation of the law, not even regulation. So whether or not, if your kid knows the name, which, I mean, it seems hard to imagine a kid doesn't know the name, how did there get to be a report? you know, the kids, your child's gonna tell you their name. And when you talk to the school, you might use the name and the school is going to respond as if that is, could be a name, it might not be the name. They're not supposed to be responding that anything about that other student, at least their identity. So I know that isn't always a great time when you're the parent of the target victim. whatever word is appropriate, but that's definitely not new.
[lxGqRLo36-s_SPEAKER_00]: Sorry, thanks for the clarification. I just, you know, needed that clarification so I understood and, you know, I was even thinking that the child wouldn't be allowed to tell the caregiver and I thought it would be a little stressful for, you know, if the child knew, you know, because they want to work with the caregiver to, you know, some supports and, you know, just to get them through it.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Thank you. Member Hays.
[Hays]: Thank you. Yes, I wanted to echo what everyone has said. This was a huge amount of work. I watched a couple of the meetings, so I know the back and forth and how long those meetings went. So this is wonderful that we have this plan in place now, and it's updated with all the new information. I did want to mention, I had my hand up a minute ago, in terms of the definition of target, I mean, it's a pretty short definition, but they do have definitions for those newer terms. on the DESI website in their model bullying prevention and intervention plan. So those definitions could just be taken from there if the team decided to do that. So my question, I had a couple of questions, but my main question really had to do with the definition of bullying. There's a definition on the first page, which is page three when you print it up, Lines 17 through 24 has a definition of bullying that I know it was taken pretty much verbatim. In fact, I think it was definitely verbatim from the law, the Massachusetts law. And I looked at a couple of their district websites. It seems like everyone really just pulls that and uses it verbatim. But then on page, the next page, page four lines 55 through, 61, when it's talking about the investigation and how the conclusions of the findings may come out, there's a different definition of bullying. It adds in that bullying can only be found to have occurred. It says, a finding of bullying occurs when the incident is determined to be between two students who are not considered to be equal in power within the quarrel or the problem. Bullying is abuse and occurs when a socially powerful student abuses, sorry, it goes on mentally or physically abuses the weaker. So it's a different definition, really. It's adding in that idea of it has to be an unequal power. And I don't see that anywhere in the law. I don't see that anywhere in the DESE website plans. And to be honest, I looked through a few other local, several other neighboring districts, and I don't see that anywhere in their plans either. So it seems like a pretty significant change of the definition. So I was wondering about that.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I know member Graham has her hand up too. I don't know if that's to answer that question or member Rousseau. It was. It's just to answer member Hays' question. member Graham than member Ruseau, two answers to embrace.
[Graham]: Sure. So the reason that it appears in the section that you're referring to is because we heard from caregivers in particular that very often, and whether it's too often or not, I think is a question for another day, but the conclusion or the finding will come back that it is not bullying, but it is conflict. And we really pressed the administrators to be clear with us about what does it mean? What is the difference between conflict and bullying? And that is where that nuance comes in about sort of social power and recurrence and repeatedness. And what we're trying to do in that section is talk about what this looks like in practice so that people can start to understand that conflict doesn't mean it's not serious. it just means that it doesn't rise to the level of bullying under the law. So that is why it appears in that section really to try to sort of thread the needle between the difference between bullying and conflict because there are lots and lots and lots of times where the findings come back and the finding is that this isn't bullying, it's conflict. And I think that's really confusing to parents. And so that was why we were trying to clear that up.
[Hays]: I guess, so my question is that actually under the law, that doesn't require the finding that there was a differential in power. And so we're actually changing the definition compared to what the law says. It doesn't say that in the law. The law doesn't say everything that's in our policy. But the law clearly defines bullying. And I'm trying to find the passage now where it actually says that you should not change the scope of the definition. You can clarify the definition, but you can't change the meaning or the scope, and I would, I'm concerned.
[Graham]: I think that- I'm not seeing how that changes the scope personally, but, and we talked about this for like five meetings.
[Hays]: Okay, but I think it, it adds something that's not in the law. It adds something that requires a judgment call on the, whoever's doing the investigation that the law doesn't require. And I didn't find that in any other local school district adding in this definition of you know, abuse of power or a power differential between the aggressor and the target. So I, I think that's a change to the law. And I would, I would, I as a parent, if I had a child who was being bullied or thought was, I thought was being bullied, if they met every other criteria based on the law, and then you said, well, they didn't, it wasn't bullying because we require it to be a difference in power. I, I would probably look to getting some legal advice on whether that's legally allowed for school to add that into the law.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I remember McLaughlin and then member.
[McLaughlin]: So, I think it was a person there that was it I, I think I had my hand up for sorry. Thank you. Yeah, I just have an issue because I didn't unfortunately receive the policy and I just, I did just reach out and ask for it. So I am getting a copy of it and I have got a copy of it. I think from one of the members, I have been part of the subcommittee. So I'm aware of a lot of it, but I didn't get to do a final read through because I did not receive it. It was sent to another McLaughlin. in the district. So I just want to put that out there as well that I haven't had a chance to read through this. So I want to be able to read through that before I take a final vote.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: And I know this is the first reading. Member Ruseau?
[Ruseau]: Yes, thank you. The word power occurs is listed in the law seven times. Power differential is listed. I'm happy to share my screen if somebody wants to, doesn't believe it. I mean, I'm on the mass legislature.gov website looking at the law myself. Power differential is actually discussed. And I don't know what to say other than that. I think it's worth noting that power differential is always implied. Otherwise, we're going to have no more sports teams. Because stuff that happens on sports teams between people who are hanging out and doing things on sports teams, if we don't have power differential in this equation, it's going to be considered bullying every day there. At least how I think happens at a lot of sports teams. Stuff that two people don't even think is bullying will be bullying because the policy requires that if an adult sees it, doesn't require that the students say they were bullied. So I think that's a very, very important thing to recognize that we have We have not required that the students say I was bullied. We have said our staff is responsible for seeing something that we believe based on the definition is bullying and acting. And that's the expectation. Frankly, that's the expectation I think that's always existed for school staff. I doubt anybody would disagree. But because of that, I think that the definition does have to be pretty darn airtight because part of the reason we're here is that everybody had an opinion on whether it was bullying. And then one person, the person who was dealing with it says it's not bullying. And then five other people in the administration look at it and go, How is that not bullying? And I'm not suggesting that the people who are making these determinations that things are not bullying are doing anything wrong. I'm saying they've had a pretty bad definition that is really hard to follow. So that's just trying to give some feedback on what we've talked about in our five meetings. But I certainly respect that the definition does look different. But the word power and power differential is in the law multiple times. Thank you.
[Hays]: Point of information, I think, if that's the right term.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Point of information, yeah, which will be a question, and then Member McLaughlin.
[Hays]: I have the law in front of me, and I actually don't see that unless there's an updated version and I found the wrong one. But I don't see the definition of bullying in this law that I have in front of me, the chapter 71 section 370. That definition of bullying is exactly what is on the first page of this plan, but I see nowhere else any discussion of there needing to be a power differential between the victim or the target and the aggressor. I mean, if anything, adding that power differential makes it harder to define something as bullying because that requires the investigation to decide whether there was a power differential between the two people. And I don't think the law requires that based on my reading of the definition.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin, I don't know.
[McLaughlin]: Yeah, no, I just was looking at the. Yeah, I'm just looking at the agenda and I just want to clarify for myself and for folks that what what we're doing right now is the first read through right so. I forget, and maybe through the chair, Member Ruseau, if you can remind me of the policy for the read through for the new policy. So we do read through one, and then we do read through two, and then we vote for approval or not. Is that accurate?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Member Ruseau?
[Ruseau]: Our policy number 46 does say that we would have two readings. The first reading has to be approved for there to be a second reading. Okay, thank you. The second reading, my understanding is the second reading needs to be exactly what the first one was, what we voted it. So second reading is not an opportunity to come in to continue to amend. If we amend, then that's a new first reading.
[McLaughlin]: Okay, so thank you to the chair. So if I understand correctly, the first reading is the opportunity to have input make changes, you know, public comment, whatever. And then the second reading is just sort of reading officially what was agreed upon in the first reading before making the final vote and that affords the opportunity for folks to, you know, I guess review once again even though they can't have change or input so I guess I'm in a little bit of a quandary here and I'm looking to my colleagues to let me know what they think before I make a motion if I need to to make a motion to table because I haven't read this. So I'm looking to my colleagues for what suggestions they might have since I haven't actually had the opportunity to read through this and were they in that position, what would they like to do?
[Lungo-Koehn]: You'd have to table it if you needed more time.
[McLaughlin]: Yeah. That's what I'm thinking. So I'm going to make a motion to table, because I have not gotten the materials I would like to get the materials. So I can read through them so that we can have a full first reading and maybe that will also afford us the opportunity to reflect on whatever the other issues are regarding the law and I also want to thank my colleagues on the on the subcommittee. This has been a lot of work and the people that have attended the subcommittee. This has been a lot of work and Also to miss Branley thanking her and to know that there was a lot of people and there are a lot of people who are watching and or have been involved prior to miss Branley as we were working through this process. Prior to it going to the policy subcommittee which unfortunately took an incident for it to get you know that far and there are other people out there in the community I know. that have had ongoing issues as well and that we've talked to and worked with. So I want them to know that we very much care about the issue and it has been a big commitment to an important commitment and an ongoing commitment that we'll continue to have. But I do need to make a motion to table so that I can give it my full attention and get the documents that I have not received. So I would like a second, please.
[lxGqRLo36-s_SPEAKER_00]: Second.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to table is debatable by member McLaughlin, seconded by member Kreatz. We have two hands up. Member McLaughlin, I just want to know if you want to withdraw until Member Graham and Ms. Branley give a comment on that. I do. Hold on, Ms. Branley. Go ahead. All right. Member McLaughlin? Member McLaughlin? Yes. Yes, I will. Thank you. Thank you. OK. I'm sorry, I'm getting some feedback.
[SPEAKER_03]: Ms. Branley? Ms.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Branley?
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, I mean, I just think it's a shame to have this delayed any further. It's such a disservice to all. It's just been worked on so hard for so many months and for so many meetings. And just before if we table or whatever is going to happen next, I just wanted to thank Member Ruseau for his kind words. I do appreciate all of your attention in this matter. I want to thank the school committee overall, and especially those that have been in the subcommittee meetings, Attorney Greenspan, I'm going to try not to get emotional, so I've written my notes so that I don't get emotional. But I'm grateful that you guys have made this meeting a priority, and including me in all the correspondence has meant a lot. This policy revision gives me hope that the policy can be executed properly. Our family suffered greatly by the lack of policy execution. But to know that this policy will help reduce that extra stress in an already emotional time gives me great peace. So I just want to thank you all. Whether we have another meeting or don't have any other meeting, I think the policy looks great. It's readable by a parent who might be in an emotional situation that can read through this and say, OK, I know what the next steps are. I know what's going to be done. I know who's going to handle it. And I did not see that in our 40-page document prior. And the fact that I never saw the document for two months after Jacqueline had already been assaulted. So I know that we're going to do better. We have to do better. So I just want to thank you all for, you know, really helping me get through this. And this is one, just one part of it. So I just wanted to make sure that that was said. So thank you all.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Thank you.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Member Graham.
[Graham]: Yeah, hi. I am not in favor of tabling this or delaying this in any way. I think all policies are such that they are open to review and revision and changes at any point in time and that can happen. But to me the value of doing this right now is that the superintendent needs to implement this policy with some fidelity, which is something that has been sorely lacking. And the longer that we wait to fully approve this policy, the longer it goes before she can begin her planning to make sure that every single administrator knows what their role is in this policy. It is different in terms of the expectations of our staff, and it is not going to be a small undertaking to get 500 and something people lined up and working in the same direction. So I am absolutely not in favor of tabling this any further, because I don't think there's anything substantive that's going to materially change the implementation work. And if there are small things that need to change, subsequent policy revision is always a possibility. Thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin.
[McLaughlin]: Thank you, thank you. Good to hear from members as well and from the community. Although I do have to respectfully agree to disagree. I think we've come this far with the five meetings that we had and I don't want to push something through without having had the ability to read it. I don't feel like I'd be doing due diligence to my constituents and to the people of Medford not having read it as part of the subcommittee. I really do feel like it needs to be read and that's the important piece. I put a lot of work into it and a lot of work before the subcommittee. into it working with a number of families. So I think it's important for every member of our school committee to be able to read the proposed policy before we can vote on and approve of it. And I do believe that any other member of this community, the school committee, if they had not had the opportunity to read this would feel likewise. So I am respectfully asking that we table this, but I will ask and amend that we table it to the very first possible meeting in September so that it can be the first item of issue on the agenda so that we can get this moved forward. I know that the superintendent knows that this is coming. We just need to be able to fully do our work and diligence for the community that we've been voted to do, which is reading through it and having a say on it. I cannot vote on something That I haven't even seen the final version of especially when I had so much input on it as a subcommittee member and also having been a family member who has experienced bullying in the community as well I really feel like it's important to take the time to be able to read this one or two more meetings is not going to make that much of a difference. And I won't feel I'm doing this in good conscience without having read through the policy.
[SPEAKER_06]: It's unfortunate that it went elsewhere. I can appreciate that people make mistakes. So I'm making a motion to move forward. I'm asking that the question be moved forward, please. Thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I just, before the roll's called, you know, I feel that you should be able to read it as well. And I also would be willing to try to find a date sometime in July where we could do a quick four o'clock meeting. So we wouldn't have to wait till September. So motion on the floor by Member McLaughlin. Is there a second by Member Hays? Roll call, please.
[Jim Lister]: Member Graham.
[Lungo-Koehn]: No.
[Jim Lister]: Member Hays.
[Graham]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Gratz.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member McLaughlin.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member McDowell.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Ruseau. No. Mayor Langeau-Kern.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. The motion's tabled, and we'll see if we can schedule some meeting around vacations in July. Thank you. Mayor? Member Ruseau. Motion to schedule a special meeting.
[Ruseau]: Motion to schedule a special meeting for Wednesday, July 12th at 4 p.m.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm not available that day.
[Ruseau]: Motion to schedule a special meeting for Wednesday, July 19th at 4 p.m.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to, if everybody is agreeable to that, motion to schedule a meeting for the 19th at, you said 4 or 3? 4 p.m. 4 p.m. I'm ever so never by. Second member McLaughlin roll call.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Remember Graham. Ever grab sorry. Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Remember his.
[Hays]: I'm going to just ask I had to check my calendar. We're still with July 19th.
[Jim Lister]: Correct. We're on right now.
[Hays]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Never cuts.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member McLaughlin.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Mustone.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Ruseau, yes. Mayor Lengelker.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. We'll have a meeting to take this first reading on July 19th, 4 p.m.
[Ruseau]: Mayor.
[Lungo-Koehn]: And we'll make sure that Member McLaughlin and the whole committee gets the materials accordingly. Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: Yes, I do believe that the committee received from our executive assistant on Monday, the materials, but I would like to just say that, well, I guess I can't say it because that's what we'll do in that meeting. So I would probably be discussing it without it being on the agenda. Nevermind. I will stop speaking. Thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: We are on. stay generous.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, be recommendation to approve the 2022 2023 school year superintendent evaluation.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Is there emotional member?
[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm sorry, Dr Edouard-Vincent.
[Edouard-Vincent]: No, I just was saying, Mayor, that this, uh, On the previous meeting, it was listed as minutes only and it needed to be it needed to go to an official vote. So that's, that's why it was listed on the special meeting today. Yes, of the revised, there were slight revisions. There were some numbers that had to be revised. And I believe there were a few comments that hadn't made it into the final evaluation. And I want to thank member Hays for coordinating all of that and sending the final revised version, which included all of the amendments or additions that the committee requested.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Hays? I saw your hand up.
[Hays]: Oh, well, I was just going to mention that. I wasn't sure that part of the reason also we had to come back to this was there were two changes to numbers and then there was also member Rousseau's full comment. We added a page to put the full comment as formatted so that it's exactly how he sent it to me. So those were the there were two numbers that needed to be updated. and I updated those, and like I said, added a page to put in the full comments of Member Ruseau.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to approve. Second. Motion approved by Member Hays, seconded by Member Kreatz. Roll call, please. Member Graham? Yes. Member Hays? Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes.
[Ruseau]: Mayor Mustone?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: I said, am I saying mayor before everyone's saying member? I'm like, wait a minute. Sorry about that. I thought you were going to say Mia, Mia, Mia. No, Mayor Mustone, yes. Mayor Lungo, correct?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, paper passes. Seat approval of the fiscal year 24 operating budget.
[Hays]: Excuse me, can I, this will be my first time making motion. Can I make a motion about the superintendent's evaluation? I don't know if I'm out of order doing that. I just want to make a motion that we post that to the school committee page on the school district website. Second.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Motion by member Hays, seconded by member McLaughlin. Roll call, please. One moment. Member Graham? No. Member Hays? Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member McDowd? Yes. member of seven. No, Mayor Lundgren.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Paper passes. Now we'll go on to number C, approval of the fiscal year 24 MPS operating budget.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Is there a motion for approval of the final budget numbers?
[Lungo-Koehn]: I know I have a question maybe before a motion for approval, just with regards to hiring a new chief financial officer for the school department just maybe a status update on where we're at, because I just know this is a delicate budget and it's going to need.
[Edouard-Vincent]: Yes, we, we are looking. I've been in contact with MASS and speaking with other superintendents and just trying to see if we can get, it's a very, very limited pool. And there are a lot of candidates that have financial backgrounds. They have like a CPA licensure, but they do not have school finance. And there are so many really critically important innuendos with school finance that the school finance administrative license is very, very limited. So I have been working with colleagues and have put out several feelers, and we do continue to have That position posted, but the majority of the applicants do not have the proper credentialing they have financial credentialing but they don't have school finance experience at all. And so we are looking at all options. including like possibly trying to get retirees or other financial school finance administrators who would take the job even if it were to be for interim like a one-year interim basis. So we are looking at you know different options but The pickings are slim and there are other districts that they found themselves in the same exact position. So we're trying to think creatively about getting someone with the proper credentials to be able to come in and help us because next year will definitely be a year where we have to really start planning early. to make sure that, you know, everyone is informed in a timely fashion and they know where we are, what's the status of our finances.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: You're on mute, Mayor.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Graham, thank you for the update, Member Graham. And just on the update, just think we need somebody as soon as possible, even if it's just finance background that can be doing the accounting. I know we want a school finance person. I just want to make sure that this budget is managed accordingly. Fingers crossed we find somebody. Member Graham?
[Graham]: Thank you. Yeah, I agree. I also wonder if you can recirculate to us the position description, because maybe there is something about the way the position's being described that can be adjusted, especially like our last assistant superintendent of finance and operations had a very broad scope of responsibility. And I guess the question is whether that continues to be what we must have or what we would like to have and where does the position description sort of describe the set of responsibilities to perhaps be more appealing to candidates. So if you could send that around, that would be great. And then my other question about the budget was, what does this budget account for in terms of increases for non-unit employees? So in other words, is there money in the budget for compensation increases for non-unit employees? And if so, how much?
[Edouard-Vincent]: There is a little space where we have compensation allocated for non-unit employees. How much? Well, if we were to be looking at all of The totals, depending on what the committee will end up approving or not approving, we should be able to cover it.
[Graham]: But is it a 2% compensation increase for non-unit employees, or is it something else?
[Edouard-Vincent]: For the majority of non-unit employees, we have 2% allocated. And there are a few individual contracts that are in the process of being renegotiated as we speak.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, thank you. How much do we have set aside?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: And in what account?
[Edouard-Vincent]: With the non-unit increases, we would have that coming out of the undistributed account, our undistributed errors and omissions. That is where we place
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: some of our anticipated salary line items.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Do we know how much is in that account?
[Edouard-Vincent]: Right now, it's slightly over 500,000, and we're still negotiating a few of our contracts, unsettled contracts.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Member Gramey, hands still up.
[Edouard-Vincent]: Approximately for all, for the non-unit employees, we're probably in the vicinity of 120,000 to include the raises from the different departments across the district and level setting some salaries that were not level set for several years. So right-sizing salaries that are not competitive with our neighboring districts and colleagues, which is something where, you know, we're subject to people being recruited to go to other districts, good people that you wanna hold on to because other districts are able to recruit them at significantly higher rates.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Um, Mayor.
[Graham]: Member Graham, yes. So before I make a motion to approve this budget, I just want to reiterate that this budget is really fragile and it is going to require really sharp management of every single penny that's being spent in the district. That includes contractors, consultants, everybody, how we bring new folks on board, what their salaries are, like every last penny is gonna need to be watched very carefully over the next year. And we cannot be on June 28th next year, At a point where we're just finally able to approve the budget because we have a just a tremendous amount of work to do with the exhaustion of Esther there's 28 people on Esther funds and that work has to start as quickly as it possibly can to really look at the organization structure and ask. ourselves, what about this structure serves students and what doesn't, so that we can start to make decisions that are in the best interest of students and deal with the reality of coming off of an amount of money that is just no longer going to be available to us. will be in the fall putting forward a series of resolutions to make sure that this work is happening proactively. And in the meantime, I, with lots of hesitation in my heart, make a motion to approve the budget.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I just want to second what your your comments to so if it's looking like CFO is, even if we adjust the job description and give it give it a few weeks if we're still not getting the applicants that we look at bringing out I know Michelle's going to be deep in the budget and managing as best she can but she's going to need help. A second set of eyes and somebody that's you know, has that ability to manage and do the job that needs to be done here. And I just feel like we're going to need to find, you know, some sort of an accountant or somebody. And I know on the city side, we went through this where we didn't have a CFO for many months and it just can be extremely difficult to manage. So I'm hoping that we can get updated on it throughout the summer. So we know if we've been able to bring somebody on and what their capacity is. So motion for approval by member Graham, seconded by- Seconded. Member Ruseau.
[lxGqRLo36-s_SPEAKER_00]: Oh, okay, sorry.
[Jim Lister]: Member Graham?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes. Member Hays? Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member McLaughlin?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Mustone?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Ruseau? Yes. Mayor Long-Beauclair?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative. Zero in the negative. Paper passes. We have number four, negotiations and legal matters. Executive session continued from June 12, 2023. Executive session pursuant to general law 30 a section, a three, the Metro school committee will convene an executive session discuss strategy and preparation for negotiations with teams to local 25 security monitors custodians and administrators because an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the committee in the chair so declares. Executive Session pursuant to General Law 30A, Section A2, the Medford School Committee will convene an Executive Session to discuss the review, open administrative contracts of all non-unit personnel. And the Medford School Committee will convene an Executive Session to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect thereto. Medford School Committee will not reconvene in public session subsequent to the Executive Session. Is there a motion to revert to Executive Session?
[McLaughlin]: Motion to go to Executive Session.
[Lungo-Koehn]: by Member McLaughlin, seconded by? Second. Member Kreatz, roll call, please.
[Jim Lister]: Member Graham?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Hays? Yes. Member Kreatz?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member McLaughlin?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Mustone?
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.
[Jim Lister]: Member Rissell? Yes. Mayor Lococo?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative.
[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: We can revert to executive session.
|
total time: 8.06 minutes total words: 1248  |
total time: 4.96 minutes total words: 590  |
total time: 8.16 minutes total words: 1345  |
total time: 5.79 minutes total words: 955  |
|
total time: 5.18 minutes total words: 817  |
total time: 4.92 minutes total words: 1012  |
||