AI-generated transcript of MSC - Special Meeting - 07.19.2023

[Lungo-Koehn]: business and to meet in an executive session to conduct strategy and discuss legal matters. Meeting can be viewed through Medford Community Media on Comcast channel 15 and Verizon channel 45 at 4pm. You can log on or call in by using the following link or call in number. I don't think you can call call in. Okay, so you can watch by zoom or community media, Comcast 15, Verizon 45. There is no call-in number. 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 residence street address, your question or comment. Member Ruseau, if you could call the roll, please. Yes, thank you. Member Graham? Here. Member Hays? Here. Member Gretz. Yes. Member McLaughlin. Yes, present. Member Mustone. Absent. Member Mustone, present.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Present. Six present, one absent. If we could all 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, which is number three. Everybody received the policy. There's a recommendation to approve the Medford Public Schools Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan Policy, JICFB, with its first reading. Any question or a motion on the floor? Member Ruseau.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: I'd like to make a motion to suspend rule 46, which is, since you all probably don't have it up in front of you, it's the rule that we wrote that requires a second reading, because I don't know if anybody wants to come back in a week or two. And I don't. And also because the policy is, frankly, relatively minor changes at best.

[McLaughlin]: I have some questions about that before we move to that question.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion by Member Ruseau to move Rule 46 and seconded by Member Graham. We have Member Hays and then Member McLaughlin who would like to ask a question before the rule is called. Yes, thank you. I am warning them. That's Member Hays. Sorry, had her hand up first. And then Member McLaughlin. Member Hays.

[Hays]: Thank you, I still had the same I brought up a question last time, and I know we ended up tabling. I don't know if maybe member McLaughlin was the one who requested the table, if she wants to talk about what her. reason for tabling or what she's found since then, but I do still have the same question that I had asked last time that I'm not sure we ever really fully discussed.

[McLaughlin]: Right, and that's what I'm wondering is if you, and I apologize because I'm on hold right now with Children's Hospital for something that's also urgent, so forgive me if I have to be interrupted for one second. That is, it was because we hadn't had the opportunity to read through it because it had not, it had been inadvertently We hadn't had the opportunity to read through it. So we asked to table it. So we had the opportunity to read through it, I would presume. And now I do have probably five or six questions that I want to ask. So I'm curious if what member Ruseau is asking with not having the second read through, if he's asking that we move to approve the document without having the second read through, or is this an opportunity for us to have those questions discussed that we have that we didn't have the opportunity to do last time?

[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Mayor? Member Ruseau?

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: I'll just read the rule. Rule 46 states the first time that a policy recommendation appears on the agenda, the school committee will hear public comment on the item and engage in discussion and comment on the policy recommendation hereafter referred to as the first reading. The policy of pass will be placed on the next regular meeting agenda hereafter referred to as the second reading. In accordance with provision of rules, provisions of rule 75, the school committee may suspend this rule to adopt the policy upon first reading. A policy that is affirmed by majority vote on the second reading or upon suspension of the rules will become the policy of the school committee immediately upon another date as specified. So this is not to quell any conversations at all. This is merely so we do not have to return here in August, which we have to-

[McLaughlin]: Thank you to the chair members. So for that explanation and for the reading of the policy, I appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify. Thanks so much.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Any other questions? Member McLaughlin?

[McLaughlin]: I have more questions, but I believe, sorry, I'm sorry, one second. I have more questions, but I believe member Hays, did you have your hand up to talk about what you wanted to talk about for last time? I did, yes. Okay, so I would let member Hays go first and then I would, thank you.

[Hays]: Okay, thank you. It's really just a question. The question that I had last time was about the definitions used for bullying. And when you look at both the Massachusetts state law and the DESE, their model plan, they have the definition as basically as stated on the first page of the current proposed Medford policy. which is defined as the repeated use by one or more students or a member of the school staff of a written verbal or electronic expression or physical act or gesture or any combination thereof directed at a target that and then list those five categories. And it does say in the Department of Education model plan, it does state that for the definitions, including the bullying definition itself, districts may add specific language to these definitions to clarify them, but may not alter their meaning or scope. So then my question really is when we look at the The second page, or at least I have it printed up, the second page of the proposed policy for Medford. Excuse me, point of information.

[McLaughlin]: Point of information, Member McLaughlin. Can we share the document on screen so people can know what we're referring to, please? I can do that if nobody has it handy. Yeah, I have a printed copy, sorry. All right, that's fine. Hold on one second.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: I can pull it up. shared screen, the numbered version that you're looking at?

[Hays]: That's the one I'm looking at. It's probably easier to refer to the exact lines.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay.

[Hays]: So lines 50, starting at line 55. The bullying definition here, which is the one that's used, it says bullying investigations may be concluded with a finding of, and on line 55 it says it may be Concluded with the finding of bullying, 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 core of the problem. Bullying is abuse and occurs when a socially powerful, example given, popular or feared student mentally or physically abuses a weaker, e.g., example given, fearful student for the purpose of making them afraid or hurt. Bullying is the act of causing hurt, harm, or humiliation. That piece feels to me like it's changing the definition, the original definition in the, both in state law and the model, and adding that piece about a power differential. So that was my question, is to me that seems like a different definition than both on our first page of our model, our proposed, the definition that's given in lines 17 through 24 of this plan. which is a verbatim definition taken from the state law, which does not include that idea of a power differential is necessary for defining bullying. But the second definition in our plan, that one I just read at 55 through 61, adds that piece of a power differential that doesn't appear in the state definition or the model plan from DESE.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: If I may, through the chair, is your recommendation then to take the definition from line 17 through 24? And are you requesting that 17 through 24 become 55 through 63? Or 55?

[Hays]: Yes, that is the definition of bullying.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: 55 through 61, I mean, 55 through 61.

[Hays]: Right. So if you look at line 62 and 63, there it talks about the pattern of behavior or repeated. So that more closely aligns with the state definition, the state law. But that piece about the power of a differential does not appear in the state law as part of what defines bullying. So yes, I'm talking about, I'm requesting or suggesting that that piece needs to be taken out in terms of defining bullying, how we define bullying if an incident occurs.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay. Okay, now this is just a recommendation, right? So, because we would need potentially a vote to amend. And I know there's a few hands up, so.

[McLaughlin]: It looks like Dr. Edweb-Minson is just marking the document so that we understand.

[Hays]: And just to be clear, I also did look at several districts in our area. I looked at the bullying and intervention plans for Arlington, Somerville, Cambridge, Malden, Winchester, Woburn, Waltham, Lexington and Everett, and I didn't see in any of theirs any, as part of the definition of bullying, anything to do with the power differential. That only comes up, and it comes up also in the model plan from DESE. It comes up as a potential professional development topic for educators.

[Lungo-Koehn]: While Dr. Edward-Vincent marks this up, Member Hays, do you have any other questions before I turn it over to Member McLaughlin, then Member Graham, then Ms. Branley?

[Hays]: No, that was my main point, just because that's so essential to the whole thing, is understanding what our definition of bullying is in order to determine when an incident will be classified as bullying.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yep. OK. wait on the motion to amend as see many hands are up. So let's go to member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you, Mayor. I have about six lines that I wanted to discuss. So I don't know if you want to have me do like half and then come back and do half. So it gives other folks an opportunity to talk before, you know, so I'm not monopolizing time. Yeah, let's start out. All right. Okay, thank you pages, numbers 95 and 96 please. Yep.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Information on students who are particularly at risk for bullying in the school environment.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, and so I was curious about. I would like some elaboration on that I'm not sure what that. in particular means, I mean, I know in the rest of it, there was, can we go up to the heading here, the subheading?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, this is, such training may include- Regarding training, right. Being limited to informational students who are particularly at risk for bullying in the school. So probably our most vulnerable students, which was outlined in section, in numbers 72 through 76 as well. Yeah.

[McLaughlin]: All right, I just wanted to be, clear that it was in the training. So just, I wanted some clarity on that. Yes, I see where it was. I was reading earlier where that was. Okay, so that was 95 and 96, information on students who are particularly at risk for bullying in the school environment. And I guess I would love a note to have that be qualified. So if it's 72 through 76, say C72 through 76, so that we're all on the same page and what that actually means, because I think it's just vague as information on students who are particularly at risk. for bullying in the environment. So just if we could refer back to the earlier document in terms of what that is referring to.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So maybe in parentheses as referenced, but not as referenced, but not limited to what is in 72 to 76, but not limited to.

[McLaughlin]: Yes, please. Thank you, Laura. Mayor Lungo-Koehn also, Esquire. Appreciate that.

[Lungo-Koehn]: And then 118. Post the approved bullying prevention and intervention policy on the Medford Public Schools website.

[McLaughlin]: Right, and so this is, again, I know we're having a meeting in September to talk more about accessibility of materials and what have you. I think this is particularly important for translation. And so if we're posting the approved bullying prevention and intervention policy on the Medford Public Schools website, I think we need to make it accessible to all. It can't be just in this language. And so I'm wondering where we're having, you know, so I would add, you know, including accessibility features. So whether that's, you know, translation or what have you, but I think in particular, as I think a lot of districts, you know, are doing and maybe experiencing some language barriers around some of this, we need to really be proactive about it.

[Lungo-Koehn]: The school's website was just revamped. from the same development company as the city and the city has a dropdown section where it can be translated and I believe five languages. So I would assume the schools is the same, but I don't know if somebody from the school department can confirm, but I assume that it's the same.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: We do have translation available on our website as well. So that is definitely something that is available.

[McLaughlin]: Okay, and so I think one of the things we can talk about, and again, we have a motion to do this at the beginning of the year, is how folks know about that and actually having cultural brokers or community stakeholders actually try it out and see if it's translating and it's actually accurate because as we all know, you need to use plain language and there might be things here that are not translating across. Culture, so I would say that we test this out as part of the translation and accessibility that we'll be discussing in the beginning of the year. So I'd like a note there, and if that needs to be in a motion, I can do that, but I don't wanna, I wanna go through the document as a whole before motions are made. So when we do a second, whatever, reading of it today, not at another time, I can make the motion then if it makes it easier.

[Lungo-Koehn]: I can do it right now. I'm going to email. We have community liaisons, five of them. Yeah, I know. I'm going to just see if they'll take a look over the next 30 days.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. That would be excellent. I did meet with your Metro Connects folks earlier, and I'm excited about the cultural liaisons there. So that would be a great opportunity to look through this and see if it's actually translating. well with the tool that's used on the website. Thank you, Mary. I really appreciate that. And then I'll do one more before I stop and let colleagues and others talk, and then I'll just get back in the queue again if that's okay. So I think it's number 120.

[Lungo-Koehn]: yeah, under incident reporting.

[McLaughlin]: And so there was some, there's another section, so 120 in general, the incident reporting. So I think it might be, unless I missed it and I read it a couple of times, so I'm not sure that I, can you show me the next section, please?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, hold on right there.

[McLaughlin]: I think there's a line, it's either under incident reporting or investigation. I had it as a whole in incident reporting because I wanted to ensure, and maybe my colleagues remember, and if they don't, I can look at it while others are asking questions to find the particular line. Again, I did find one line that sort of addressed it, but I want to ensure that it did address it later in the incident reporting, that incident reports and documents will be shared with all parties involved. And so this goes back to the motion that we had previously, that when there are behavior incidents or other incidents in the school that are potentially related to this bullying incident that those are part of, and that they're not excluded. Yeah, right here, 188, in short, copies of all bullying investigation forms were part of the student file, but I think there was also a part of sharing. Yeah, they said part of the student file, which essentially makes it shareable, but I'm not sure. This goes back to the concern that, you know, potentially incident reports could have been taken before the actual bullying complaint occurs and that those should have been made available to parents and guardians of the party prior to the bullying and the bullying investigation and that they should be part of the bullying investigation is essentially what I'm saying. Does anyone have any comments on that? There was a motion that we made earlier, but I don't see it anywhere, unless I missed it here. I want to make sure that it's covered.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Can you just tell me, you said line number 120?

[McLaughlin]: 170, it was the incident, no, yeah, 120, incident reporting. It's the whole section of incident reporting. Yeah, because it's the issue of incident reporting. So here we have it, 188. Thank you. It says ensure copies of all forms are in the student file. Can you go further down decision and findings? Sorry.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Keep going. Sorry.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, I'm not, I'll have to search it to see if there's anything that says that to that effect, but essentially, you know, it does say that it should be part of the student's file, but it doesn't say anything about copies, unless I missed it, about copies to the respective parties. I feel like that should be already, you know, under the previous motion, but I want to make sure that it's reiterated. So 120, if you want to go back to 120. And maybe, Superintendent, if you could just make a note there on incident reporting and documentation. And then I'll just do a search while we're also conversing because I just did 120 because I felt like it fell under the whole section and didn't see anything specific to providing copies of incident reports.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: I'm just trying to understand what is it that you want?

[McLaughlin]: On incident reporting line 120, if you can make a comment right there with the Google Doc, thank you. Documentation provided to all parties, question mark, and we can go back and revisit that while I look to see

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, we have to remember the student confidentiality. So documents are shared, student information is redacted. So information being shared with the parent regarding their child, we have to like follow the law. We're not able to just send everything with other students first and last names.

[McLaughlin]: 100%, and that's not what I'm asking, superintendent. I totally understand that, and I understand redaction. What I'm asking, and this was already addressed on the floor, is that when there are incident reports, so behavior incident reports involving a student, okay, where that incident report goes to the principal's office, because it typically does if there's been behavior involved. And we had had a motion that when that happens, that information is sent to parents so that they're notified as soon as reasonably possible. I don't have the motion in front of me right now, so that they have copies of any incident reports. So for instance, if an individual had been getting five, 10, maybe incident reports of behavior issues as an individual with a disability, for example, maybe having, you know, some, you know, who knows what medical issues as well, you know, who knows what's going on. And then they get to the point of a behavior, I mean, a bullying report, had the parent been notified of those 10 prior incident reports, right, that it occurred. And in a lot of instances, talking with families, talking with CPAC, talking with others, that had not often been the case. And the principal might come to the, meeting after 10 incidents with 10 reports in their hand that the parents have never seen. In fact, this happened just a month ago that I was made aware of, even after the motion was passed, that parents would get copies of incident reports. So we've had this discussion before, to clarify. And what I want here is to have something that indicates that that policy exists as well and where that is. And so I'll just read through. I did see something that said, you know, material will be added to the student file, which again, you know, when we say to the student file, what does that actually mean? Because we do have to consider FERPA, which we know is a federal law. I mean, there's all kinds of nuances around here. So I understand what you're saying, superintendent, around redacted names, but if it's your child and your child was involved in an incident, you have the right to know that your child was involved in an incident. And you should be getting a copy of that incident report if it's gone on file with the principal in the office. And that was what we had previously discussed. And names can be redacted, but you should know about your child's incident and not find it out from other families, members, or other students.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: So Member McLaughlin, what I'm just trying to understand is what would you like me to add in the comment box?

[McLaughlin]: Right now in the comment box, I would just like you to add, please revisit and I'll look at this while we're continuing the conversation, please revisit regarding copies of incident reports. And I will look through this section again because there was something that was related there, but it was very vague and I wanna make sure that it's clear.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Thank you. And then I will pass and defer to my colleagues for the next ones. Thank you. Member Graham and then Ms. Branley.

[Graham]: Thank you. Superintendent, can you go back to member Hays' question? I just wanted to respond to that. So I think what is being perceived as a discrepancy here is, in my mind, it's not. So we're talking, there's two things. There's a definition of bullying, which is what you have highlighted here. When you scroll down to that next section, the intent of that was to describe what the findings could look like and why. And this power differential is absolutely part of the law. But what we were trying to do, and the reason it's sub-bulleted, is to say an investigation could conclude in any number of ways. And we did that because I think what we found in the feedback that we got was that lots of things come back as like, this is not bullying, it's conflict. And it's never been, it's never clear to families, like, what does that mean? So this is, in my mind, this is not in conflict with the definition. It is instead and rather an attempt as a sub bullet to number 49, to be a way to explain findings, not to redefine in any way, shape or form like what bullying is, but to qualify like how findings come to be. So I just wanted to put that out there. We had a ton of discussion about this in five subcommittee meetings and this idea of what findings look like and what parents can reasonably expect was something we worked really hard on to try to qualify for people so that when they're reading this, we're starting to set expectations for folks that this is that many things could happen as the result of a bullying investigation. And this is just one, a finding of bullying is just one of those things. So that was my response when it comes to member Hays' question. And then can you scroll down to member McLaughlin's next question? Yeah, on this bullet. Again, this is a sub bullet. So if you scroll up to the actual bullet, the bullet is part of what Medford Public Schools will do. So in the second bullet there, if you scroll down a little bit, On row 80, MedBurgh Public Schools will provide age appropriate instruction on bullying intervention to students and professional development to build the skills of the staff as required by law. Staff will receive annual training on the bullying prevention intervention plan. Such training may include, but not be limited to, and then there's a list. If I recall correctly, this list was part of the current policy. All that we did here was try to make it more clear what this list was because there were a lot of lists in the original policy and it was just sort of a mess to try to understand what it was. So this is framed as Things Medford public schools will do, we will provide age appropriate instruction and annual professional development that training may include but will not be limited to these things. And it's really at the discretion of the superintendent to decide what that annual training looks like. And so one of those topics could be information on students who are particularly at risk for bullying in the school environment. It's not unlike any other, so I am personally of the mind that we don't need to sort of complicate it with like a reference back to something because it's a sub-bullet that just describes the kinds of things that could happen in professional development. And then could you scroll down to Member McLaughlin's other question, incident reports? So I guess what I was thinking about as you were talking, Member McLaughlin, is if that motion, and I think the answer is it's not quite there yet, but we made a motion about incident reports. And what we didn't do was codify it into policy. But I think incident reports can be about many, many things over and above what happens as it relates to this bullying report. So what I think would be most appropriate is for us to codify that incident report motion that we made into a policy. And then when we do that, we just come back and we make an update to this policy to add a reference that this bullying policy will substantially conform with that policy. So When you write policy, you don't want to put things in lots of places because it becomes really hard to manage. And I think incident reporting in that context that we already passed is much, much bigger than it is specific to bullying. So I would rather see us formalize that as a policy and then come back to this document and reference. And so that's just a suggestion on how we move forward on that question.

[Lungo-Koehn]: That's all I had, Mayor. Ms. Branley? And then Member Hays. Ms. Branley, are you there?

[Graham]: I think somebody may need to unmute her.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, there she goes.

[FpP3QZeb9RA_SPEAKER_03]: It looks like I still can't start my video, but that's OK. Can you hear me?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. I'm sorry, you can't start. OK.

[FpP3QZeb9RA_SPEAKER_03]: No, that's OK. It's OK. But I just wanted to say, in the fact of what member Hays was saying, I just think all the refining that we did during all of these meetings was just so helpful to see happen as a parent, because those refinings were not there when we were in our situation. And I just think as much depth as we can put in this, which I think we've done, this looks so good to me, it makes me so happy. that we have in here is just so helpful as a parent to know all the little details here and there that when you're in the midst of something traumatic, to know that you can read this and it all makes sense. And you can say, oh, this is exactly what was happening in our situation. This is exactly what's supposed to happen next. So I just think the refining that we did was just so helpful. It's gonna be so helpful to the next set of parents that have to deal with something like this. Hopefully they don't. And then I'm just curious on member McLaughlin's comment about, you know, if there were 10 incident reports and then a bullying report, I would like to think there wouldn't be 10 incident reports and then a bullying investigation, right? I mean, I know that we had three before a bullying investigation and already an assault at that point. So I'm just hoping that, We don't have to go down, any parent doesn't have to go down that long road anymore that there will be, this policy will help nip everything immediately. So we know, is it a conflict? Is it bullying? And then how to put all the pieces together after that and how to actually execute the policy. So I just wanted to just comment on those things. So thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Member Hays and Member McLaughlin.

[Hays]: Thank you. So just going back again to the definition, so two things I guess I would like to just make clear. I have looked through the state law several times. There is no mention of the power differential except as a topic for professional development. I mean, I'd be happy if someone wants to tell me where they're seeing it, but I did look back again, because I know that was also said at the last meeting, that it appears several times, and it only appears again, is a topic for professional development, not anywhere in terms of how you determine whether a particular incident is bullying. And in terms of how it's written in this policy, I think that's one of the important things after a committee has gone through as much time as this committee went through, then to present it to people with a fresh eye who look at this and say, but that doesn't make sense to me. And I'm looking at that with a fresh eye and saying, that particular piece doesn't make sense to me. because it does seem to be saying the way that it's worded is that 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 core rule of problem. And to me as reading that, it says to me as a parent or as a school committee member, I'm looking at that thinking that's telling me that the only time an incident is going to be or one time when an incident is going to be considered bullying is when someone determines that there's a power differential. And I don't see that anywhere in the state law. I don't see that anywhere in the DESE model. And I think that, to me, that seems to suggest a change in the meaning or a change in the scope of the definition of how we're gonna determine bullying, which the state says we shouldn't do that, that we should not change the meaning or the scope. If we were to go down this road, again, I wouldn't vote in favor of this in it because I think that it changes the meaning, but we'd have to define how someone would determine a power differential. I think that's an incredibly nuanced and difficult thing to determine in any situation, but certainly among students, how they define power, how the power structures are among students, I think would get us into some really tricky and gray areas. But more importantly than that, as I said, it's not part of the state definition. So I don't think it should be part of our definition.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Member McLaughlin. Thank you. 125, please.

[McLaughlin]: And this is, yeah, we're still under the incident reporting piece. So I guess I wanted to, first of all, if I could, through the chair, address member Graham's comments, which I appreciate. I guess I have two things. One is I think maybe as part of like school committee onboarding for folks that are coming in or what have you is, you know, this sort of idea of this notion of codifying into policy. I think that, TAB, Tila Duhaime): Maybe folks you know aren't always clear that if emotion passes that it should be one would assume it would be implemented, but. TAB, Tila Duhaime): In that motion was passed, but I think to your point codifying it into policy. is another step. And so I think we really need to be thinking about that on the floor. If we're making motions, if these motions need to go into policy to actually be enacted, it's gonna take up a lot more time in our policy subcommittee, but that's an interesting point and one that I hear you saying. So I will definitely be revisiting that in the fall, but it's something that I would like the committee as a whole to consider. because it sounds like a slippery slope to me a little bit where if motions are passed, but and or aren't codified into policy, does that mean that they're not being enforced? Do we have to also codify motions into policy? Like that's sort of another step that I'm questioning, but I appreciate again, that being brought up. The decisions and findings, can you scroll down to that please Mayor? Well, actually it's investigation and decision and finding. I don't see anything in this material. And again, unless I'm wrong, I read through it, but I was marking through my notes and I don't see anything in here. And maybe it's back at investigation or maybe it's back at report. I'm not really sure where my colleagues think it should go, but I do think that we need something in this report that says, you know, we will provide a, translation and interpretation as needed. So you know when you're sharing bullying reports, when you're sharing investigation findings, when you're sharing decision and findings, how is that being shared with our community who might not have English as a first language or might not have English at all and are getting their material translated through their student or through other folks. So I think we need to say that we will provide translation and interpretation to families who have English as a second language. Another really important lesson that I learned Not too long ago, this was actually in the IEP process, where I was speaking with a mom. This was actually a while ago. It wasn't not too long ago. It was probably five or more years ago. But I had become friendly with a mom who was a native Vietnamese speaker, could converse in English, and I had reached out to the Vietnamese community advocates to support her and to get help for her. And they had said, does she have the IEP translated into Vietnamese? And I remember at the time saying, oh, no, no, she can speak English. And that was my naivete, ignorance, whatever you want to say. But speaking a language and deciphering complex content are two different things. And so to have it in one's original language or to have an interpreter or translator provided or translation of documents provided sorry interpreters speech translation is print so to have those things and provided I think is important and I don't see that on this document here again like to miss brownies point. I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly, Ms. Brownlee, that I would hope that there would not be incident reports that had not been shared. And that's the whole point of why we're moving forward with so many of these things, because we were in the situation where those weren't shared. And in some instances, we continue to be in the situation, and hopefully these things are remediating that, particularly training for principals and others. So I couldn't agree more, but I also think that this, interpretation of the report, interpretation of findings, interpretation of decision, interpretation of rights. We have to have somewhere that this material will be interpreted or translated for those whose language is not English as a first language. Thank you, Dr. Murray, Dr. Edwards-Vincent for putting that in there. And then 178, please.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Does that capture it just having it in front?

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, I don't know if it's going to be under decision and findings. I think it's going to be earlier with report filing, to be honest, because they need to know what's going on in the process. So I would say maybe up as high as, yeah, add this to whatever the report, the incident under incident reports or something.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, thank you. 178, please. I'm sorry, what was the number you said? Thank you.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, and so I just wanted to point out to the central student information, whether it's school brains or what have you to store these incident and investigation forms and all of the disciplinary remediation, all of those things. I think, again, I think that just needs to be vetted for FERPA and needs to be vetted for security. And so that's just the note I would put there. Like what, you know, how does that, I don't know that it does in school brands. I know that they have the student ID in there. I just don't know that they have all these other records in there. And I don't know what the requirements are for FERPA for, I know for our company, we have to submit forms when working with like state, programs to ensure that we have safety and security around this information. So I would just like a note around that, please.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: Through the chair member McLaughlin, I don't know if you bullet 183 talks about how this information is a temporary record. So this is all part of what we're required to do, that discipline information is part of a temporary record and it's kept for six years after graduation of involved students.

[McLaughlin]: Yes, I hear you. And I think that's important. What I'm saying is that the 178 is saying maintain a central student information system. So it sounds like it's wanting to digitally store incident, all of these forms. And I'm saying around digital security around this, Or is it a paper storage? I don't know. And are we ensured that this material is digitally stored and, you know, in a safe way that FERPA is not being violated for students? So that would be my question, the digital piece. Do we have the, you know, do we have the digital certification to ensure that this information is stored securely under FERPA requirements is what I'm asking.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Thank you and then 188.

[McLaughlin]: So, ensuring all copies of these, you know, are of all of these forms are kept in the student are placed in the student file, and I guess I would defer defer to. Director of Pupil Services, Joan Bowen, on some of this. So I know just like, for example, for the individual behavior plans, yeah, they're in the student file, but that doesn't mean anybody can access them. And so they need to be in a secure situation. So for example, for students who are on an IEP, if they have a behavior support plan, so that's how I would word it too, I would just behavior support plan. But if they have a behavior support plan, you know, there are people who can see it and then people, you know, and hopefully are reading it and are using it. But not everybody can because it might also contain medical information. It might contain, you know, who knows what. So I guess what I'm saying there is, is that I would, I want to hear what the director of people's services has to say about this 188 to 190.

[O'Connor]: So, my understanding with this so there's two different things so if a student is a student with a disability and they have a behavior support plan that is part of their, their record their special education binder that anyone that is providing services are working directly with that student has access to that file to look at it to read all the documents that are in there. I think bully investigation forms, reporting forms, those would go into more of a student record folder, which is separate from special education. So that might be the folder that's kept with the guidance Councilor. We also could come up with a way of storing that it's in one central office, maybe at central administration, my office, whoever's office that they come in, we keep them in a yearly, older in a secure office, something like that. So I think it's just the within the district determining how we want to store those and to maintain confidentiality and FERPA and all of the above.

[McLaughlin]: Right. And so I guess I thank you. Director Bowen, so I guess on that 190, I would add that comment that, you know, so special education files are separate from quote student file. If we're talking about the records that are being destroyed in this sort of student record file versus special education, and they're under very different laws and what have you. So we need to think, yeah, about how that is, how we wanna word that. Thank you. I only have two more left and I would ask my colleagues if they're okay with me just going through the two more before switching out or I know, through the chair member grams next. Is it okay for me to go through two more, Mayor.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yep, two more is fine and then we'll go to member and then hopefully we can. Yeah, yeah. Five or so. Yep.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, so if physical injuries occurred and have not been examined, asking a nurse to examine the target and aggressor. So there's a little bit of like, I don't know, there's a little bit of a question here. So one is obviously if the injury is severe enough that they need other care, it wouldn't be the nurse that's doing this, right? Or maybe in a in an emergency situation, the nurse is there, what have you. But for example, in situations where there is abuse, it can be worse for the patient, and this is just trauma-informed practice. And I think Avery could talk to some of this as well, but if there's injuries that occur, having the individual relive the experience over and over and over again can cause additional trauma and can also affect the outcome of the. nature of the story sometimes in terms of what happened when. And so I'm not sure what we're saying about asking us to examine the target and aggressor, especially if there's an emergent situation and it's more serious. So I just want to put a note there. I just want to tag that for a second for conversation around what exactly, I mean, if the opportunity is available and the injuries are such that they're not severe enough for you know, an ambulance or police or what have you to be called, that might be different. But I would love, I know she's not here right now, but I guess, you know, it would have been good to hear Avery's input on that or somebody's because I'm not. Yeah, I'm not sure what the requirements are there. But just want to put a pin in that. And then 365. And that's my last one.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So thank you guys for your patience. Yeah, so PRS.

[McLaughlin]: So again, I guess I would ask the director of people's services about this too. PRS is one option for collaboration with families, but it's usually involving special education or an individual with a disability, if I'm not mistaken. In other instances, it's not PRS, it's the office of civil rights. So director, yes, Bowen, if I could through the chair.

[O'Connor]: So I just wanna clarify that PRS can be families, general education families and special education families. So a parent of a student who does not have a disability, if the bullying and plan was not followed, they have that ability to go through PRS to see if the district did follow their procedures and policy.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. And so that's in terms of the procedure and policy. And what about how does that differentiate from the Office of Civil Rights? Because I know that bullying incidents also go through the Office of Civil Rights. So I feel like if we're providing this, we also want to provide the information on the Office of Civil Rights. So why would we not also provide that information?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Or would we? That's what I'm saying.

[O'Connor]: I would have to defer to see, you know, like what is included in other bullying and preventions. I can look into it and get back to you, but I mean, I don't see why it shouldn't be in there.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, I mean, I think we have it on all the other documentation, so why not offer it as, you know, because it's part of the procedural safeguards for families regardless. I know it's in part of the procedural safeguards for individuals with disabilities, but I think some parents might not understand that PRS And, you know, I hadn't thought about that in terms of the procedure. They are about procedure. So I could see how it would be. It could be individuals without disabilities regarding procedure, but it also could fall under Office of Civil Rights. So I think that people need to know that there are both of those options. So that's what I would ask.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So the note I would put in there is include information on Office of Civil Rights, please. Thank you. That's me. Member Graham. Thank you. I wanted to make a motion to amend the policy at line 259.

[Graham]: To insert a bullet that reads provide interpretation and translation services for families so that a comprehensive and productive collaboration can occur. I'm gonna just put it in the chat so that everyone can read it.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: Can you repeat it one more time, Member Graham? I'm sorry, I was just- I just put it in the chat. Oh, you did. Okay. Because I'm screen sharing, I'm not- Yeah. Let's see if I can find that. Okay.

[Graham]: And so the reason that it goes here is because it's an overarching requirement of central administration to make sure that this is available to families as they need it. And how you operationalize that is something that the central administration would be responsible for.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Right. Second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Member Ruseau. Mayor, we can't vote on this. We have another motion on the floor. Can you remind me what the other motion was?

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: The motion is to suspend Rule 46 by me and seconded by Member Graham.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, motion to suspend rule 46. Roll call vote, please. Member Graham? Yes. Member Hays? No. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member Mustone is absent.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Rossell? Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, motion is approved, five in the favor, one opposed, one absent. Now motion to amend line 259 with what is written in the chat by member Graham, seconded by member McLaughlin, roll call please.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Graham?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Hays?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member Mustone is absent, sorry. Member Rossell, yes, Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes.

[McLaughlin]: No, that was six in the, seven in the affirmative.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Sorry, no, Member Mustone's absent, so six in one. Thank you. If you can just give me one more second. And then Member McLaughlin's motion to amend, lines 95 to 96 to read as reference, but not limited to the language. I'll withdraw.

[McLaughlin]: Sorry.

[Graham]: If you can just give me like one second, I'm actually typing something about that.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay.

[Hays]: Member Hays. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I know when I was speaking about the definition, I'm not sure that I clearly made a motion to to remove the part about the power differential. I have a question.

[Lungo-Koehn]: No official motion right now on that yet.

[Hays]: Okay, I'd like to make a motion if I can.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Dr. Cushing, did you want to speak on that? or something else?

[Cushing]: No, I did wanna speak on that. And with all due respect around the power imbalance, stopbullying.gov and even Australia lists the power imbalance in the definition within the first sentence. I also, you're not supposed to speak about your personal experiences, but as someone who was pretty routinely bullied up through the sixth grade, and it's probably why I do what I do, it was a definite imbalance of power. It was not for anything else than an imbalance of power until I was able to tip the scales. So whatever it may be, it is definitely an imbalance of power.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing.

[Graham]: Mayor, do I still have the floor or have we moved on? Sorry.

[Lungo-Koehn]: While you were typing, Member Hays made the motion to remove the imbalance of power language. I don't know if there was a second. Is there a second out there?

[McLaughlin]: I had a point of information, Mayor. I was wondering if I could get some clarity on the motion because- Point of information by Member McLaughlin. Clarity on the motion. Can I ask a question? Yep. Point of information. Yes, thank you. So I am hearing, if I'm hearing correctly, The request is around using consistent language for bullying. And we have the language earlier as the definition of bullying. And then we have these additional aspects of other sort of, I guess I would say second tier deeper digging into other sort of definitions of bullying. I think what I'm hearing is consistency, but then if I'm not mistaken, I'm hearing through member Graham that it's about sort of subdividing under a different category, what those would be. And I think the issue is the power differential if I'm understanding the issue correctly, but let me just finish. So I'm asking if that is the issue is the power differential or is the issue that we're not using consistent language in the definition. And if the issue is the power balance issue is the question because it leaves ambiguous who can decide whether there's a power differential or not. So those are the questions I have about that.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, I'll let member Hays have the floor to answer those so we can move forward on this motion and then go to member Graham's language for the next roll call.

[Hays]: Thank you. So the issue I'm bringing up is is that the power differential does not occur in our state law definition. I do understand and I have looked at the federal government's website, stopbullying.gov, and they do talk about a power differential. However, our state definition is very clearly does not include that. And so my concern and my belief is that we are waiting into a change of the definition if we start to include that as part of the definition of the way that we of the way that we determine when a bullying incident has occurred, which is what this page says, that it will be determined to have occurred when the incident is determined to be between two students who are not considered to be equal in power. And I do understand, and I think that we see that also in the state, the DESE's model plan, they do talk about the power differential as part of something that that educators need to have professional development about. They're not saying that doesn't exist, but they do not include that as part of the definition for determining when bullying has occurred. So my motion is to remove that power differential as it's worded anyway, it appears to be part of the definition and part of what we will use to determine when an incident is classified as bullying. So I think it doesn't match the state law.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Sorry. Okay, I'm gonna see if there's a second on the floor to remove that language. And can you just identify the number, line number that you wanna remove from? It's 55 to 61.

[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: That's right. And swapping or 55 through actually 63, I think. I would second.

[Lungo-Koehn]: point of order. 24 point of water member result.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Members are only people allowed to make motions. No offense to our superintendent members should make motions by stating the motion. Um and know what they're saying is their motion. I'm trying to take minutes here so we can take votes and I have people like making suggestions and comments. This is a public legislative body. We are making motions to modify policy. We are not having a conversation about my opinions of this, that, and the other, and what websites say what. So if members could do their jobs and make motions so that I can write the minutes and we can take legally binding votes, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member Rossell. So, Member Hays, I'm understanding that your motion is to remove the power and balance language from section line item, section under policy line numbers 55.

[Hays]: I can state it. It's to remove lines 55 through 63 and reinsert or insert in their place line 17 through 24. Second.

[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Can I ask for just one minute to read this?

[Graham]: Mayor, I have a comment before we vote. Okay, comment before you vote. Member Graham. I think just trying to drop in a definition here totally sort of diminishes the entire intent of 49 all the way through to 64. That was written as a block intentionally. And so I am absolutely not in favor of doing this in this way because it does not take into account the relationship of the three things that could come out of a finding, which is conflict, bullying or not bullying or conflict. And if you just, change this piece, the integrity of the whole section is not quite right and it's confusing. So I am not in favor of this and I will vote no, I'll happily do that. But I'm asking my colleagues to really think about how to do this thing that they're asking us to do without compromising other really important components of this document.

[McLaughlin]: May I ask a question?

[Lungo-Koehn]: member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. I think that when I'm looking at this bullying, so I get that conflict bullying, not bullying, which I want to talk about the flow chart as well that Peter had created around helping simplify this because I think that's part of the issue is that we need to have some visual clarity because this is a, I forget how, 16 page document. That can be a lot and a lot of folks are TLDR, but also a lot of folks are visual learners. We haven't addressed that piece either, which I want to address before this meeting is over. But this particularly suggests to me that a finding of bullying only occurs when there is students who are not considered to be equal in power. So when the incident is determined between two students who are not considered to be equal in power within the quality of problem. So what if the students are equal in power and one is bullying the other? How is that investigation And so we said earlier. Yeah, question. So how is that qualified if they are equal in power and there's a bullying?

[Graham]: Can I respond to that? Because we did talk about that in subcommittee quite a lot.

[Lungo-Koehn]: I think that's a great question, because I'm I'm trying to dissect to see if there's a middle ground somewhere in this line item. So yes, member Graham.

[Graham]: So we we talked about this extensively with lots of principles on the phone and we really pressed them on this. And one of the things that they described Like the same behavior could be bullying and it could be conflict. And the differentiation of those two things is really about power. And so if you have two students who do not have a power differential and they are having a problem, that finding is gonna come back as conflict. So the two students are having conflict and there's a way forward and it is not like a sustained repetitive thing that that's exactly why so many things come back as conflict and not as bullying. And so what the administrators described, and Dr. Cushing can keep me honest here if I am misremembering, but that they described that one of the reasons why parents are so upset when their finding comes back as conflict is because the decision that's being made, and it's absolutely being made in all of these cases, is that these students, these two students in question, they legitimately are having a conflict, but the conflict is not exacerbated by this power differential. And instead, the finding is conflict. The very same things can happen in the output of conflict versus bullying. The very same things can happen. The difference is, it rises to the level of bullying when certain criteria are in place. And what we heard again and again and again from the administrators who do this every single day is that the actual thing that differentiates bullying from conflict is like, is this this idea of is there a power differential here? Yes or no. And, you know, frankly, administrators are like assessing power differentials like all day long, every single day in a school. that's just sort of the nature of being an administrator in a school. And so that was one of the things we talked a lot about. And prior, like the policy, it said something like, well, it could be bullying or it could be conflict. And there was no qualification for like what that meant, why it meant, or like how parents could understand like What does that mean for me and what happens next? And so we really pushed the administrators on this like over the course of several meetings to help us define how can we set people's expectations about this thing? And that is why you have this. So if the motion is to replace this piece, you're degrading this, the intent and the spirit of this section, which is to like help people understand what is conflict and what is bullying and what is, or that both could not be true. And without, a thoughtful look at how this whole section works, like we're doing a disservice to the policy that we've worked really hard on.

[Hays]: If I may, just point of clarification maybe, or you know. Point of order or point of information with a question, point of order with a statement. With a statement, point of order. So I appreciate that you talked with the principals, I think that's important, but I also think that I think that the state law trumps what we believe to be true about, I mean, if there's a state definition and that straight definition does have criteria for what determines an incident to be actual bullying, and they don't include a power differential, again, I think that we're changing the scope of that definition by adding the power differential to it. There are actual criteria for why a conflict in the state law, how it becomes determined to be bullying it places the victim and reasonable fear of harm to himself or damage to their property. It's very well. The very clearest part of it is that has to be three or more incidents. That is repeated use three or more incidents and there's a series of five criteria. that lead to the finding of bullying. But those five criteria do not include a power differential in the state law and the state definition.

[McLaughlin]: Mayor, Member McLaughlin. Thank you. Since I sort of had brought up this with questions, I appreciate getting the floor back again. One is I can hear the nuance in this discussion, and I think it's important. And I would really ask also our colleagues, as a whole, if we're not using value statements around individuals doing their work, or whether they're degrading something, or that sort of language. I was at every policy subcommittee meeting with the exception of one. And some of this must have been the last conversation too, because I hadn't heard a lot of the argument around this, or I'll have to look back at the minutes because I don't recall a lot of the arguments or discussion around this. I think I can see both sides in terms of the power differential, but this is a very subjective thing, power differential. And it's like we had instances with our own family members who were very much being bullied. In this situation, there was a power differential. It was not seen necessarily by the principal because the principal very likely doesn't understand nuances of middle school power dynamics. And they're very subtle and can be relational as opposed to physical. They can be all sorts of things. So I think that's why there's such clarity and why and how you find a finding of bullying, and my concern my main concern about this which I think power differentials are an issue, and very much very often are the instances but not only and also it leaves to somebody discretion to determine whether there's a power differential as opposed to the other requirements that are part of state law which I think is critical. So I'm a little, I'm a little conflicted around this, which is why I'm having or asking that this be thought out a little bit more to do the chair to member Graham's point I understand what you're saying about wanting to really clarify the conflict bullying and not bullying because believe me, ours was ruled conflict and it, you know, And many others have been, as I've known, and I think would qualify under this, but it's because it leaves it so subjective to what this is. And I think this even makes it more subjective, frankly, around the power differential. So I don't know how to fix this, and I don't know if it's a state fix or what it is, but I think that maybe there's some middle ground, there's some opportunity for some rewarding or negotiation or something here, because I hear both sides of the argument and it's concerning for me, especially around, you know, and it still didn't answer the question is what happens when, you know, two people are in a situation and one is bullying the other, and it's not seen as a power differential, because for whatever reason, because maybe there's not a known power differential there. internally it's a power differential because somebody else is scared and the other one's not, but how does that determine? I mean, it's such nuance, it's, you know, emotions. How do you know internally whether there's a power differential or not? Or, you know, but for all appearances sake, they're both on the football team, you know, one's the quarterback, one's the linebacker, I don't know. And what, you know, they seem to be equals, they're of the same height, weight, abilities, you know, all of those things, but clearly one is, you know, bullying and, the other is not, how do you know that there's a power, you know, what do you do if there's not a power differential, yet there is bullying, which I think is why there's that clarification under the definition. So I hear two competing things here. Identifying and the difference of conflict bullying and not bullying or conflict, which I think is a tricky bit for everybody. And then the other is being consistent with our definition. and really clarifying what that is of bullying and making sure that we're aligning with what the state standard is. And then the third is that bullying often occurs when there's a power differential. And I'm not sure I know the solution, but I do think that just sort of plowing through or, you know, not plowing through, but saying, well, the subcommittee decided on this and this is why is not helpful because all of this committee, we're a committee of seven that needs to decide this material. So that's why we're having the discussion.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Thank you member McLaughlin member Graham if you don't have if yours is on another motion and not on this, I'm going to move for roll call on. question, and it is a tough decision for me. I see both sides. I do see the victim as eventually being the weaker, or the, yeah, I don't know, this is a tough one, but member Hays' question, seconded by member McLaughlin, if we could call the roll, please.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Graham.

[Lungo-Koehn]: No. Member Hays. Yes. Member Kreatz. No. Member McLaughlin. Member McLaughlin. Sorry, you're muted. Sorry, I was muted. Yes, thank you. Member Mustone, absent. Member Ruseau, no. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes, four in the affirmative, two in the negative motion. I'm sorry, the motion fails. That was 3-3, wasn't it? Yeah. 3-3, okay. Yes, 3-3. So the motion fails. Motion fails.

[McLaughlin]: Can we make any suggestions about how to support some language here?

[U1EIl_L-LWc_SPEAKER_00]: Mayor. Member Ruseau.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I did have my hand up to speak before we took the last motion.

[McLaughlin]: Howard has his hand up too, excuse me. Thank you.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: You know, when I joined the committee in 2018, we were assigned our subcommittees and I was, you know, a new member and very excited. And Paula Van der Kloot, member Van der Kloot, who served with us for 30 years, leaned over and said, I really shouldn't need to be excited because subcommittees don't meet. And I was confused. And she said, subcommittees don't meet because the committee cannot trust each other ever. So every member would either come to every subcommittee I don't know if it was the subcommittee that had to make it a regular full meeting. I've been very proud of the fact that this committee has figured out how to trust each other in subcommittees. I do think it's important to remember that we can vote against things, but finding a consensus isn't necessarily an option. And I hope everybody will vote no if you are not okay with the policy. But when a subcommittee recommends it, it is assumed that the subcommittee spent an inordinate amount of time that cannot happen on the floor to come to the policy that they reported out, the policy recommendation.

[McLaughlin]: And this is- Point of information? Or actually, point of clarification though, through the member or so, if I may, through the chair. May I, Member Ruseau? I'm not sure if Chair stepped away. Yeah, I just wanted to add, and I hear you, and it is a lot of work, and we do trust each other, and I think this is a tough subcommittee, and I think they're all important, and I think this is, you've done a lot of work on this subcommittee. We all have. And I think that when discussion happens on the floor, things can happen that you hadn't thought of in subcommittee, where you do start to have different, positions and perspectives. So that also has to be considered. And it's not a matter of trust. It can be a matter of critical thinking.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: May I continue?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: I certainly met just to respond to remember a lot when I do not expect that the subcommittee thinks of everything. And that's why I think it's good practice remember just to come with a, I'd like to make some motion to change this to that, or insert this language here that we are an hour and 20 minutes into. an agenda that is to approve or not the policy. It is not to write a new policy. And we have strayed from that so wildly, it's kind of impressive. And, you know, again, nobody has to vote yes. If you just think this isn't right, this isn't legal, or whatever your other reasons are, vote no. I urge you to vote no. I would vote no in a second if I didn't believe the policy was good. And it would not, even if I thought my colleagues did great work to come to a policy decision. So that's all I just wanted to say is that I hope we're not on the road towards never having subcommittees again, because if this is how we have to do every policy, I'm not sending stuff to subcommittee. I'm gonna bring it to the floor and we're gonna spend four hours talking about everything. It just slows the amount of work we can get done down dramatically. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Well, I just, if I may, if I may from the chair, I think it's a very important policy and I know we have a long agenda and we're all just thinking about how most of the time is gonna be taken up with this policy and we don't usually meet in the summer, but I think it's very important. I know that colleagues had questions 16 pages long, so I understand what you're saying, Member Ruseau, but I do wanna respect our colleagues asking good questions and struggling with some of the language. So with that being said, Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: I just also wanted to make a point of clarification here as well. It's that subcommittee chairs don't get to decide whether something gets referred to the subcommittee, that's the committee as a whole. whether something gets referred to a subcommittee. So just for clarification.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So member Graham, I think you were going to work on the, you were working on the last amendment and then hopefully we can take a vote on the full policy.

[McLaughlin]: Yes. Sorry, point that actually Mayor, may I, because there were two or three items that we had commented on that I didn't realize I was going to have an opportunity to make a motion on if I wanted to. And I was having discussion for the courtesy of other school committee members in the public. So I would like to scroll through those and see if I would like to put forward a motion before we are making a final vote, please.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor, do we want to hear from Attorney Greenspan? Attorney Greenspan, are you need to talk to us about this policy.

[Csi-YZOcLIg_SPEAKER_01]: I didn't attend all the subcommittee meetings, but as a suggestion on the finding, could it be that the finding of bullying could be pursuant to the definition which is listed at the beginning of the policy, and also in addition to include lines 56 through 62. So it's not, it could include the definition or it could include this specific portion about balance of power.

[McLaughlin]: I make a motion that the section includes pursuant to the definition previously and the material 56 to 63, which I think is agreed. some compromise and negotiation.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So do you want to type that in the chat?

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: I need the motion.

[McLaughlin]: The motion is to include pursuant to the definition of bullying on the lines, whatever, 17, you know, pursuant to the- Can I get the lines?

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: I'm sorry. Member McLaughlin, I'm not sure where the quotes and commas start.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, if we could type in the motion, just take your time, type it in on the chat, please. Sure. then it's in writing. Yeah, thanks. Mayor, I have two motions I'd be happy to make.

[Graham]: Yes. So why don't you make those motions? Okay. So the first one is a motion to amend the proposed policy at line 371. Sorry, there's a bug flying around my face. To add the following bullet, the office of civil rights is available to help families see the additional information at the following link for additional detail. And then there is a link to a fact sheet from the office of civil rights. and I just popped it into the chat. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So motion from member Graham, seconded by member Rousseau. Roll call, please.

[McLaughlin]: Sorry, may I have a motion again? I'm actually trying to type my motion into the chat as was asked, and we moved on to another motion, which I'm, yeah, I know I didn't have a second on my motion because I was asked to clarify it in the chat. So there is motion.

[Lungo-Koehn]: We'll hold on this one until you've finished.

[McLaughlin]: Pursuant to definition of, yeah, because I'm switching between documents because you guys are moving them. around so i just remember mclaughlin i have one typed for that too if you want me to just put my you're a faster typer yeah i will i will love that thank you i have to multitask between the two screens and i'm just too tired thank you so do we want to call this motion first on the civil rights yeah yeah and can you tell is the motion in the chat sorry let me just yes okay hold on one second i'd just like to read it if i may yes thank you um yes Please. May we call the roll? I think, are you standing in for the mayor, vice chair? Yeah, I'm here. I'm just waiting for phone calls, but we're for good.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Graham? Yes. Member Hays? Sorry, yes. Member Kreatz? Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member McLaughlin?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Mustone, absent. member. So yes, Maryland. Okay.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Succeeding affirmative one absent motion passes.

[Graham]: Okay, here's the next one motion to amend line 56 as follows. A finding of bullying is pursuant to the definition above and may occur when the incident is determined to be between two and then it continues.

[McLaughlin]: And the definition was line 17 but we won't have that reference in, you know, because people won't be seeing the line numbers so I don't. Yeah, that's why I just said above because it's one of the, which is why, yeah, which is what the, my original motion was thank you. But I was asked for the line numbers so that's what you got. But second, that's great. Thank you.

[Hays]: I'm sorry, can you read that one more time.

[Graham]: Sorry. It's in the chat. A finding of bullying is pursuant to the definition above and may occur when the incident is determined to be between two and then it continues unedited.

[Hays]: I'm sorry, I'm confused as what's going to come after that. There was something about pursuant to, and I don't.

[Graham]: Yeah, a finding of bullying is pursuant to the definition above.

[McLaughlin]: Which was the line 17, the DESI definition.

[Graham]: Got it, okay, thank you. And then the connection is, and may occur when the incident is determined and then everything else sort of stays as it is. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Motion on the floor, seconded. Roll call, please.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Who seconded it? I'm sorry.

[McLaughlin]: I seconded it.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Melanie.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Graham.

[McLaughlin]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Hays.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Democrats. Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Remember so, yes, Maryland.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, 16 affirmative one absent motion passes. Thank you. If that's the final motion, I will see if there's a motion on the floor to approve the policy as amended.

[McLaughlin]: May I just, may I, for a point of clarification, I just want to scroll through the tabs to make sure we didn't miss anything. Because again, as I was saying there, I just wanted the opportunity to ensure I wasn't making motions at the time because I thought we were having opportunity for discussion before motion. So would you guys just indulge me for a minute where we can take it from the top and scroll through the tabs if you guys don't mind? Thank you. Cause it's an, it is a very important document yet. That's the definition. Yep. That's fine. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Thank you. That's cleared.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Because information on students, it was, it was around the action, the training they'll take. I'm fine with that. Yes. We said that earlier. Thank you. Yeah, copies of incident reports. So we did not address this, and so I would make a motion to include a line in the Medford Public Schools will, and it can be, you know, the last line. Can we go up a little bit? After 117, so 118. ensure family caregivers, I would make a motion that the public schools will ensure family caregivers receive incident reports regarding their student with redacted information with respect to other individuals prior to investigation determination.

[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm gonna need all that language. You want me to type it in the chat. That would be great, thank you sure so mps so line. I'm just going to take this call and then I'll be back. I'm just going to receive incident reports regarding their student redacted prior to investigation. Yeah.

[McLaughlin]: So I make a motion to include in 118 under MPS will after ensure district staff is aware of policy in 118, MPS will ensure families or caregivers receive incident reports regarding their student redacted for identifying information prior to investigation. If I can get a second, that would be helpful.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Have you got a friendly amendment? Sure.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: to remove, we've moved on to just using caregivers under all circumstances instead of- Yes, yes, please, thank you.

[McLaughlin]: I would amend that to say MPS, and we say MPS at the top, Will, so I don't think we need to add that bit, but just ensure caregivers receive incident reports regarding their student redacted for identifying information prior to investigation, please.

[Graham]: Second. There's a motion on the floor from Member McLaughlin, Member Hays, I have one question. Member Rossell, go ahead.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: I just was, the prior to investigation part of that, I'm sorry for having just put it into the motion, into my minutes. That does imply that there will be no investigation. You know, this happens first period. There will be no investigation that whole day until the report has made its way to the parents. the caregivers. And I'm worried that administrators will, first of all, just simply violate it because it seems nearly impossible, but also it just, if they did follow it, the quality of the investigation, I would imagine would be degraded.

[McLaughlin]: You have a point, and I think that's interesting. I'm saying prior to investigation, because really they should receive incident reports when they happen. Once your family can't receive incident reports regarding this, you can redactify and identify information within 24 hours of their occurrence.

[Lungo-Koehn]: If I may. Okay. Member Ruseau. Thank you. I just wonder, I mean, the incident report,

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: I'd have to grab them and look at them right this second, but is there not a lot of content that ends up on an incident report that is the result of the bullying investigation? I'm just trying to imagine how this will play out. The clock is ticking and I'm just worried about creating some kind of weird, situation and I'd like to hear from an administrator who would know how this would work in real life, because I don't, but we spent a lot of time subcommittee caring about that so yeah and I guess I would say I would like to move the question and I'm happy to revise it to within 24 hours of.

[McLaughlin]: of the incident report. So, you know, that they can start investigating as soon as they want. And I'm not, this is not singular to just bullying incident reports, because we have, you know, and I'll codify that in policy in September, but specific to, you know, any incidents really, but within 24 hours. of the incident, I would say is reasonable to get a report that an incident occurred. I'm not saying that they're getting a full bullying report. I'm saying the incident report, not the full bullying report, a report that an incident occurred, which you would hope they would get a phone call home that day. but within 24 hours they should get a record of an incident report occurring. So what I'm trying to avoid, and I would like to move the question, but what I'm trying to avoid is a parent being involved in this situation after 10 incidents have occurred and getting to the office and having, you know, the principal waving, you know, 10 incident reports in front of them and them being really outraged at not having known this. And, you know, I have to say that's happened to more than one person. There's my echo. Hello, echo. So I would like to move the question, please, with the amendment. NPS will ensure caregivers receive incident reports that occur as, oh, it does say it, that occur as a result of bullying within 24 hours of the incident.

[Graham]: So member McLaughlin, that is my suggestion based on what I'm hearing is that we frame it that we're we're specifically qualifying that what we're talking about here are incident reports that recur as the result of bullying investigations, because otherwise they're going to be like housed outside of this completely. And that the parent caregivers need to receive these reports promptly. And so that provide some flexibility to make sure that like the intent of as soon as you can is out there, but also allows the administrators to do what they need to do from a

[McLaughlin]: investigation standpoint. Yeah, right. So I'm not sure that I'm hearing you exactly. But what I am saying is, yes, if they're specific to the bullying incident, I agree. But what I am saying is that there could be five incident reports that are specific to this bullying incident, and they were not shared with the family. And that is what I'm trying to prevent here is that NPS will ensure caregivers receive incident reports that occur, you know, within 24 hours of the incident. And will be, you know, included in of, you know, potentially be included in a bullying investigation.

[Graham]: Yeah, I think it's at least my suggestion that that belongs in the overarching policy about incident reports because you could have incidents that ultimately become part of a bullying investigation, but they aren't that when they start. So I think that belongs more in that overarching policy than it does here.

[McLaughlin]: But I feel like we, oh, and you said make reference to it if we have, once we have that overarching. And then, so this document, okay, so I would like to, because I don't want to forget this as a placeholder, so I will modify, thank you. I will modify my motion, but I will make a motion that we have a reference to the incident reporting policy to be created in the fall of 2023 included in this bullying advisory.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Okay. This is the third motion.

[McLaughlin]: Sorry, I'm withdrawing the previous motion.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Which one?

[McLaughlin]: The motion that NPS will ensure families caregivers receive incident reports, the one I typed up.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Can you withdraw the motion to move the question first? That has all precedence in Robert's rules.

[McLaughlin]: Yes, no, I know, I know, I know you don't. Yeah, I know I'm sorry I'm reading at the same time. Yes, I will withdraw the motion to move the question which it didn't get picked up. Anyway, the question was not moved. So, it's kind of silly to withdraw it, but I will do that because it wasn't followed. regardless, but I will withdraw the motion to move the question. And I will revise my motion, withdraw the motion that NPS will ensure families and caregivers receive incident reports regarding their student redacted for identifying information prior to investigation. And I will make a new motion

[Graham]: Member McLaughlin? Yes. I just made a suggestion in the chat that I think does both of the things that you're wanting to do.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you.

[Graham]: And there are no motions on the floor with seconds at the moment, so.

[McLaughlin]: Yes, thank you. I make a motion that NPS ensures caregivers receive incident reports that occur as the result of bullying investigation promptly. And further, this policy will be amended to include reference to the incident reporting policy to be created in the fall of 2023 as soon as it becomes available. Thank you.

[Graham]: Okay, on the motion. I need a second. Member McLaughlin, is there a second? Second. Seconded by Member Hays. Roll call, please.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Grant? Yes. Member Hays? Yes. Member Grant? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member Mustone? Absent. Member Ruseau, yes. MaryLynn Gooker. She's on the phone, so I'll put her as absent.

[Graham]: So five in the affirmative, two absent, motion passes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.

[McLaughlin]: We just go down through the rest of the document quickly. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I'm going to leave that up to administration to decide regarding the.

[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm sorry, I was here, I just could not mute so you can just. You're in and out mayor. Sounded like a yes. And think that was a yes.

[McLaughlin]: It's hard to know. Mayor, we can't hear you. You can put your vote in the chat. That might be helpful. Sorry, through the vice chair.

[Graham]: So we'll wait to see what her vote is and we can amend the tally as necessary. Are there any other motions for amendment on the floor or to be made?

[McLaughlin]: May I finish this? Yeah, thank you. This read through. So special education. Yeah, yeah, we already agreed. Oh, so yeah, a place in the student file. I would like a motion to amend 188 through 190. So are placed in the student file and or, You know, I don't know how we address the special education file as being different. Ensure copies of all bullying reports, individual behavior plans are placed in the student file. So there's two different types, as we said, of student files.

[Graham]: Could we just add, are placed in the student file as required by law?

[McLaughlin]: Yes. Thank you.

[Graham]: So motion to amend row 190 to add as required by law. Second. by member McLaughlin. Is there a second? Second. By member Hays.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Point of clarification, please. Point of so. Sorry, one second, too many. It's really just line 190, correct? Yes, just at the end.

[McLaughlin]: We have the next one all set, if I may, to the chair, the translation and interpretation. Yep. Thank you.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Can I take the roll call? Sorry.

[Graham]: Yep, member Ruseau, you can call the roll.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Sorry. Who was the first and second on this one? I'm sorry.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin and member Hays. Member Grant. Yes. Member Hays. Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member McGrath.

[McLaughlin]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Not member McCracken, sorry. Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Mustone absent. Member Ruseau, yes. Mayor Landau-Kern.

[Graham]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: The vice chair, may we continue going through the end of the document? Yep. Did we make a motion on this? We did. Oh, yeah. OK, that was passed. Thank you. Thank you to the superintendent as well for making the notes. That one's clear. That one's good.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah. I, and I'm not gonna make a motion on this, but I do want to bring that to the attention of the administration to please circle back with Avery and check on what is appropriate for that. And we can revisit it if we need to. I can also circle back with Avery.

[Cushing]: If you'd like, it's basically anytime there's any physical contact, we want unwanted physical contact. We want students being checked out by our nursing staff.

[McLaughlin]: Okay, thank you.

[Cushing]: As a matter of practice moving forward in all situations.

[McLaughlin]: Yes, and then this was already set for the civil rights. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So we're 13. We're almost there. Yeah, that one was. Yeah, that's the civil rights. Yay. The chair awaits a motion.

[McLaughlin]: Motion to approve this bullying policy plan as amended. As amended.

[Graham]: Second. Motion on the floor by member McLaughlin, seconded by member Hays. Roll call. Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Sorry, I just wanted to point of information or point of order, actually, sorry, excuse me. The mayor did put in her yes for that vote, so we want to amend that motion. I make a motion to amend the motion regarding, oh my God, I'm tired, you guys, what motion was that that we were waiting for the mayor?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Don't even worry about it, it's okay.

[McLaughlin]: All right.

[Lungo-Koehn]: This is the big one, as long as you can hear me now. Yeah, we can hear you now.

[McLaughlin]: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you guys. I didn't know if she wanted to do that. So my apologies. Can we start from the top for the roll?

[Graham]: I get to say yes twice. Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Yes. Member Mustone absent members. So yes, Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. 16 affirmative one absent motion passes. We did it.

[Graham]: Great job, everybody. Thank you, everyone, for all your hard work.

[McLaughlin]: Man, I just have my hand up. Yeah, I just want to say the same. Thank you guys for your super hard work. I know that this was a lot and I really appreciated the communication today just around collaboration and, you know, seeing how things get done and how it's not always easy. Thank you.

[Graham]: You're welcome. Give me one second to find my agenda, which is lost in a sea of tabs.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Because we have other agenda items for tonight.

[McLaughlin]: Sorry, I make it sorry. I have to make a motion to include the flowchart. We didn't look at the flowchart. Can we, can I make a motion that we revisit this plan in the first meeting in September to review a visual flowchart to ensure, yeah, to ensure, I'll write it in the thing. Motion to revisit the wing. Policy plan to review. Sorry to review. I'm just typing policy. I'm talking to review a visual.

[Lungo-Koehn]: to assist in accessibility.

[McLaughlin]: Okay, so I'm making a motion to revisit the building policy plan at the first meeting in September to review a visual flow chart to assist in accessibility. If I could get a second.

[Graham]: I just, I had a suggestion on this before we maybe make a motion. I think I would like to request that our new communications director, Mr. Thomas Dalton, who appears to be on the phone, welcome, Tom, that we ask the administration to actually take the time to put this flowchart together in a way that is easy to understand and visual and lends itself to being able to be read by a screen reader, etc. And that that become a communication piece rather than like the school committee necessarily needing to vote on it. I think that's a better precedent for us to set. And I think the other thing that I'm super sensitive to with flowcharts is I do this work a lot with people and there are lots and lots of people in the world who can't read flowcharts. And so you either can or you can't. And if you can't, you can't. And like, there's just like no, no navigating around that. I will also point out that flowcharts are incredibly hard for screen readers to process. Um, they'd have, it'd have to be extensively all tagged and it would be near impossible to do so. There's probably another kind of visual that would lend itself better to that, which I assume that our new communications director would be able to work through in advance and present it to us instead of having us have to discuss how it might happen on the floor.

[McLaughlin]: Okay, well, I will withdraw the motion and I will ask that the community, welcome, Tom, we haven't met. And I will ask that the communication director is part of the conversation around the accessibility meeting that we already made a motion to have at the beginning of the year, both for language and other accessibility. So I think that falls into that category, but that doesn't need to be a motion. So, okay, thank you. Perfect.

[Graham]: Okay, so I am still, I can't believe I am still looking for my agenda, which is literally lost in the abyss of my computer.

[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm just going to go to the shared drive and pull it from there. I don't know how it got so lost. Where did you send it member Rousseau? Your email. Oh, see. Probably still in the ether.

[Graham]: Yeah, let me check again. Oh, there it is. There it is. Thank you so much. Okay, number five negotiations and legal matters executive session continued from June 28 2023. Executive session pursuant to master law section 30A, number three, the Medford school committee will convene an executive session to discuss strategy and preparation for negotiations with Teamsters local 25 security monitors and local 25 administrators and custodians because an open meeting will have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the committee and the chair so declares. Item two, executive session pursuant to master law section 30A, A2, The Medford School Committee will convene an executive session to discuss and review open administrator contracts of all non-unit personnel. And item number three, executive session pursuant to Mass General Law 30A, A4. The Medford School Committee will convene an executive session to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect thereto. The Medford School Committee will not reconvene in public session subsequent to the executive session. Do I have a motion to enter executive session?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to enter executive session.

[Graham]: Motion to enter executive session by Member McLaughlin. Seconded by Member Kreatz. Roll call, please.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Haynes. Yes. Member Kreatz.

[McLaughlin]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Yes.

[f9NpRcOkIx4_SPEAKER_08]: Member Mustone-Absent. Member Ruseau. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion is approved to go into executive session.

Lungo-Koehn total time: 17.5 minutes total words: 1877	McLaughlin total time: 41.21 minutes total words: 7309	Hays total time: 11.06 minutes total words: 1731	Graham total time: 16.81 minutes total words: 2633