total time: 5.28 minutes
total words: 832
total time: 17.8 minutes
total words: 2910
total time: 18.47 minutes
total words: 2494
total time: 2.05 minutes
total words: 418
total time: 0.14 minutes
total words: 1
[Reinfeld]: Um. Or refer. This. To, um. To Medford's Office of Sustainable Sustainability. I know our climate action plan. References lead only, um, but either or invite. The sustainable someone from the sustainability office at the city to comment on that as a
[Ruseau]: I mean, I certainly, I would be happy with an and. I don't know the chips. Is it the word chips, all uppercase, is the S?
[Reinfeld]: It's CHPS. I can put that in the document, I think, if that's useful. I got it. Yeah, I didn't have time to do the research, but from what I've seen, it seems like there are some really important milestones for schools that we should be thinking about as people using the building.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. I actually, I don't particularly, not that I don't find the city's Office of Sustainability to be, love them at all. But I don't particularly want their input here, because they work for the mayor. The mayor is the person who will be funding this project, while the residents will. And I just don't feel that they're going to be able to offer an opinion that's based purely on our goals. Instead, they're going to offer an opinion based on what's financially reasonable. And so we're just going to be chopping down potential before we've even started. I mean, if somebody comes in and says LEED 5 is going to cost us a billion dollars for a high school, well, then we can sit and decide that's not a thing we can do. But you know, and other times when that office has spoken about issues, there's always the start with whether we can afford it. And I think that that's a conversation for afterwards, not before.
[Reinfeld]: That's fair. I think that's perhaps then included in one of the consultancies that the next section is gonna refer to to make sure that we have that consultancy in submitting our application.
[Graham]: Okay. Member Olapade.
[Olapade]: The question about the, I guess, overarching overview or like the accountability. So because we're, we're doing this, this committee, I think with the overall voting power of the building creation, when it comes to actually like hitting these public input and stakeholder feedback. let's say like thresholds of actual input. Are there ways for us to actually make sure that's happening? Not to suggest that like the building committee wouldn't be doing that, but more specifically making sure that we're garnering as much input as possible, just because that's a lengthy process that some parents, some community members might not be as able to respond when, you know, let's say a survey goes out immediately. So are there ways for us to, I think, try to keep us as honest as possible by trying to get as much input as possible? That's just something that I've noticed.
[Graham]: Sure. So I think there are lots of ways to do that. One of the things that we will ask of the committee first is to prepare a report to the school committee. And one of the items for consideration is What, even in this like first early stage is the plan for community input so I think that's a good mechanism to sort of include in like the monthly reporting in terms of like what is stakeholder engagement look like because it will change over the course of the project, I think it's. much less exciting in the first eligibility phase than it will be when you get to things like feasibility and schematic design. Like that's when, you know, there's lots of planned input that the folks that we hire to do that work will come in and do. So I think it will change over time, but I think it's a good, to me, it's a good call out to think about in terms of like the monthly reporting. of what has happened, what's coming up. And that might be a good way to make sure that we as a committee are keeping tabs on that.
[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: Ms.
[O'Connor]: Bowen. Hi, just one quick revision on the title of Curtis Tufts High School. It should not have the word alternative. Okay. If you can just change that, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Apologies for that. Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: Thank you, yes, on the issue of community engagement that member Olapade just brought up, I believe the MS, I mean, their process is quite lengthy and I won't pretend to be an expert on it yet, but there are mandatory community engagement activities we must perform, round tables, all those other focus groups, those are not optional. So I'm sure that what they actually look like is probably like much of the MSBA recommendations is kind of vague because a little tiny community somewhere out West in Massachusetts is different than the city of Boston. But we cannot get out of community input, which obviously we want. But I think including it is fine and great. I just think people should be comfortable with the fact that we absolutely will have to do that. regardless of whether we want it, which we do want. So.
[Graham]: Thank you. I just offered a suggestion which essentially builds out number three and says that complies with MSBA guidelines and guidance from the Medford School Committee. So just sort of sets up that requirement for us to be having that dialogue with the school committee and the building committee together on an ongoing basis. Other questions about goals? Never so.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. Could we put the New England chips before the word lead? Just because the climate goal stuff is specific to the lead stuff. And thank you. And I would prefer definitely an and, not an or. One of those is definitely going to be far more Strict than the other. I mean, they weren't written by the same people at the same time with the same data. So, I mean, I don't know how Member Reinfeld feels about that, but I'm a big fan of and, because if it's or, it's going to end up being whichever is weakest.
[Reinfeld]: Yeah, the or was simply because I haven't, I didn't have the time to do the research, but I'm going to trust the experts in the inboxes.
[Ruseau]: Thank you.
[Reinfeld]: Or I accept your revision to my amendment.
[Graham]: Okay. Are there any other questions or comments about this section? Is there a motion to approve the changes that we've outlined in this section?
[Olapade]: Motion to approve.
[Graham]: Motion to approve the changes outlined in the goal section by member Olapade. Can I second it? Oh, great. Seconded by member Branley. Roll call.
[Ruseau]: Member Branley. uh, member Graham.
[Reinfeld]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Remember all about it.
[Reinfeld]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: I'm a clock with absent member. Right? So yes, members. So yes, Maryland. Go turn absent.
[Graham]: Um, five affirmative zero negative two absent motion passes. Okay, moving on. The next section, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford School Committee, let's do the first five of these and then we'll carry on. Number one, establishes the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee, said committee may be referred to as the School Building Committee. acknowledges that the significant investment members of the committee are making in the future of the city of Medford and Medford Public Schools, and regrets that the positions cannot be compensated in compliance with MSBA rules and regulations, grants the authority of the School Building Committee Chair to recommend extensions of member terms subject to approval by the Medford School Committee, recommend replacement of non-participatory members subject to approval by the Medford School Committee, Work with the appointed committee to maintain various subcommittees, including, but not limited to, communication and community engagement, sustainability, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, finance, and other committees as established by the chair. D, work with the appointed committee to convene external advisory committees and consultancy on an as-needed basis. E, provide monthly updates to the Medford School Committee, and F, act in accordance with MSBA established rules, regulations, and requirements on behalf of the School Building Committee. Number four, requires a report to be presented to the Medford School Committee regarding the School Building Committee's governing structure, scope, resources, community engagement plans, website, and document management plans. and training no later than May 20, 2024. And number five establishes the initial term of members beginning April 15, 2024, which is the start of Medford's eligibility phase is May 1 and ending January 25th, 26th, sorry, 2025, which is 270 days from the start of our eligibility phase, or the successful completion of the eligibility phase, whichever is sooner. The school committee desires stability in the committee and will extend member terms throughout each phase of the process at the recommendation of the chair. So that is numbers one through five. Questions. comments, thoughts. All right, I'm going to move on and we are going to keep making progress. Let's just clean up number six and then we'll talk about the membership as one fell swoop. So number six requires the school building committee to comply with MSBA guidelines and align with, but it's not bound by the Medford school committee policy BDF, which is our process to appoint advisory committees to the school committee. So any questions about number six? Okay, seeing and hearing none. Number seven, appoints, defines the membership of the school building committee as A, no more than 15 voting members, B, appoints the following members of the committee. So voting members are myself, Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Maurice Edward Benson, Suzanne Galussi, Peter Cushing, and Marta Cabral. And in parentheses, what you see there are the like requirements from MSBA that the various individuals fill, just to show sort of a tie between like what we have to do and what we are doing. And then non-voting members, Bob Dickinson, who's the local budget official, to be determined the MCPPO, Chad Fallon, Joan Bowen, John McLaughlin, and Thomas Dalton as non-voting members. So I'll stop there. Questions about the appointed members of the committee? Member Olapade.
[Olapade]: Yeah, a quick question when it comes to the non-voting members. For number three, Chad Fallon is the director of the vocational program. Does it not make sense to have him be involved as a voting member as if we believe that the building is going to stay in the same place and be the same composition, but the vocational program is equally involved in that process of what the needs are for that student body?
[Graham]: Yeah, I actually, that's actually really good question. I had a conversation with Chad, the other day we actually have started working through some of the requirements that the vocational school will have to pull together as part of the eligibility phase, and we were meeting and we did talk about that. He reports, I believe, to Dr. Edouard-Vincent directly and Dr. Cushing is responsible for overseeing vocational education as well. So he felt comfortable that the vocational school is adequately represented from a voting perspective and was absolutely okay with and fine with being a non-voting member of the committee. He's really excited about the work. He is already planning a presentation that will come to the school committee about sort of what he sees as the future and the opportunity and the possibility. It's awesome. There's lots of exciting stuff to come. So certainly from my seat as the chair, I will be looking for Chad's input often as we will all the non-voting members. And he felt comfortable that his voice was well-represented from a vote, if that helps. Any other questions about the appointed members? Seeing and hearing none. Okay, so let's move on. We are then talking about applications for interested members who include one additional city school committee member, one city Councilor, and applications for seven additional open positions from the community as voting members, Medford public school teachers and staff who are Medford residents are welcome to apply. So that would be those nine positions I referenced earlier and they are at present all voting members. So I wanna circle back to Dr. Edouard-Vincent's question about alternates and whether we wanna consider adding some non-voting community members. So I just wanted to like bring that back up because I think this would be the place for us to discuss that. Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. You know, when I think about like a jury, you know, you have the alternates that are there, they have to be there. So if somebody has to leave for whatever reason, things can just carry on. I think that, I think it's a very interesting idea. And I guess what I'm wondering about is the, the pseudo-appointed alternates or whatever, the appointed alternates. The expectation, if I was to imagine how that would work, is that they would be expected to show up, that they would be participating in the conversations, they wouldn't have voting rights, and then should a voting member need to leave or drop out or whatever, It would be just a seamless process to move them into the voting seat, which is definitely better than somebody, we go to the list again, we pick somebody else, they come in, and they do not know what's been going on in the conversations we've been having for weeks or months or, frankly, years at this point. And that would put them at a disadvantage, and it would kind of slow down the entire committee, because you should bring your new people up to speed, which means repetition of things everybody else already knows. So I do like that idea. The only concern I have is managing, I mean, we would have the 15 voting, wait, is it 15 voting members?
[Graham]: 15 voting members, yes.
[Ruseau]: And then six additional members, so 21 members who will probably always be there. So, I mean, if we added two more members who are alternates, I do see the value. I mean, the commitment is so significant. And I don't know whether or not folks added as an alternate would in any way feel OK about that. I think that when we make the decision as to who those people are, we would, I guess, prioritize the list of people we want to make the voting members from the community. And then we would have to sort. We've got this teacher who's also a building trades person and lives in Medford. This is a person that should percolate to the top. And then where do we? How do we sort? Becomes a little uncomfortable. But I think if we're open about it and say, look, we want you on the committee, but we want you to be an alternate, and they can accept or not, like anybody else we offer the positions to. I think there's some value there. I mean, this is just not a minor commitment. So I think two people as alternates is something I think would be interesting. It just makes the meetings a little more unwieldy. But that's my thoughts.
[Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld. Yeah, I support the idea of alternates. My big question on that is, if we lose committee members, we're going to need to, for the most part, replace that particular expertise. I think this is a little bit what Member Ruseau was referring to. And so being really thoughtful about what that means. because the building committee is we're choosing this not by lottery not we're choosing it very much based on expertise and I but I think it could certainly be added. I guess my question to the superintendent is this for specifically for the members of the public or are we thinking about the designated voting members who are actively fulfilling particular roles because I think if it's for the public, we can add a question to the application saying, would you be willing to serve as an alternate. And then we would need to specify that the alternates are essentially a non, are they a non participatory but non voting member during the meeting. and they move into a voting role, or is it they're observers for the whole process? So what does it mean to be an alternate?
[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: Thank you for that question. I was just thinking about where the 15 voting members, and again, right now it would be about 21, 22 potential participants, it ends up getting pretty large. In my mind, I like the number 15, but you do want to have options. But where member Rousseau just commented about meeting during the summer and really spelling out what the time requirements are going to be, I'm hoping that the people who sign up will really be able to make that commitment and stay for the duration of the process. Because to your point, Member Reinfeld, if we have a person with a specific expertise and due to, you know, an unforeseen circumstance, they have to step down and we replace you know, a body, but they don't have the expertise, then that's a gap, once again, for the committee. So initially, I just was thinking if the idea was to always maintain 15 people or an odd number of people voting so that if you needed to have a tiebreaker, you know, you wouldn't have to worry about that being an issue. but also while we are here and talking about it, one of the participants on this call is one of our other administrators, Dr. Lori Hodgdon, who is the principal at the Curtis Tufts, and she also had just expressed, you know, she would be very happy to be involved in this process similar to Chad Fallon as a non-voting member, but being able to weigh in on this new school that we're going to be designing and bringing her expertise to the conversation as well. And I know that's an additional district-based administrator, but she does have a wide breadth of experience. And I think she could be a very valuable contributing member to the team. And she would be happy to be part of that team in a non-voting capacity, but participate and be involved. But I just, again, thinking about the total number, the larger the group gets, the more difficult it becomes to manage. And trying to find what is that actual ideal number, I'm thinking, actually, we probably would prefer to definitely not go up, up, up over 25. I mean, if we could probably stay under 20, that would have been even more ideal because once it gets very, very large, you have a lot of wonderful opinions and perspectives, but then at the same time, it's so many opinions and perspectives that it makes the work take significantly longer. So, I, when I originally suggested to have one or two alternates, I hadn't thought about your point member, Reinfeld, about the specific expertise. So if we have an engineer, we don't want to replace an engineer with, you know, someone who has another expertise, but for the purposes of the building, we would really need to have the expertise of an engineer or, you know, someone else with a specific skillset that's being called out. Member Ruseau?
[Ruseau]: Yes, thank you. It's funny, like, the more we talk about it, now I'm backed around to maybe no alternates, because I think what we would want to do is when we look at the list, you know, we don't know what the list is going to look like. We could have 35 people with all this technical expertise apply, and then boo for us because we got to figure out But when people apply initially, their own circumstances could change. I mean, because we could be talking about five, six months from now, and then you might not have wanted to apply five or six months from now. So we don't really have a process in here for what to do when we need to add members. Do we just go back to the well? We have the list that we had from the first time we did this. My preference would be that we go to this list. And then if we cannot be successful with this list, then we put another thing to the public and be like, we need more people with these specific skills if you would apply. But I think just going back to the list is probably the approach I would recommend. As for alternates, if we end up with alternates, I would definitely think an alternate has a voice at the table. they just don't get to vote. I mean, I would not, personally, I can't imagine volunteering to sit silently with my expertise on a topic that- Five to seven years. Five to seven years, with something I'm interested in and I wanna say something and being told, no, I'm sorry, you can't speak. Also, these are open meetings. So I don't think we actually, I mean, I guess this committee will have to design its own rules on how it wants to operate around public input and all that stuff. But, you know, The only thing I like about the more that we talk about this, the thing I most like about having alternates now that we say you're going to be an alternate is that if they actually show up. that when we need them, there will be a lot less effort involved with bringing them up to speed. That said, the tasks that we have to accomplish, it's not like we have a task that will take six months. It's tasks, tasks, tasks, tasks, tasks, tasks. So we're not going to be bringing them up to speed on decisions and things we've already done and are completed. from nine months or three years ago. We're gonna be bringing them up to speed on the things that are being worked on at the moment. So maybe that isn't as big of a lift actually. So I'm kind of wishy-washy. I feel like I could go either way on this.
[Graham]: Other questions, comments, thoughts?
[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: I just was gonna comment. I think based on the new rationales that were presented, I would withdraw my recommendation. I actually feel like you know, the reverse is true. We could have one alternate engineer and one alternate environmentalist expert, and those positions never have a vacancy, and then another area has a vacancy. So it's almost like a moving target, and it's gonna be very difficult to predict that. So I think as the application goes forward to really ask the members of the community that are interested if they could really do a due diligence and just say they really want to commit to this process so that we have a real working group that is going to be able to contribute for the duration of the project. Thank you.
[Reinfeld]: Do we need to put into this document the procedure for filling vacancies that arise, or is that something that the committee, the original appointed committee will say, if we lose members, this is our replacement plan?
[Graham]: We have a section that talks about the chair to recommend extensions, recommend replacement of non-participatory members. And so we could just simply add here based on the initial application pool where possible. I think at some point that pool becomes really stale, right? So that it may not last forever, but maybe if we do that, that sort of describes what our intentions are there.
[Reinfeld]: Yeah, and I because I agree with the process that member Ruseau out. I think it was member Ruseau outlined if we go back if that expertise is there we take it there or give that first refusal, and then put out a call for specific expertise if needed.
[Graham]: Yeah.
[Ruseau]: Yeah, no, my gut, of course, this is not based on anything, is that once people sort of reach this threshold of being committed for a year, two years, they're gonna be like, no way am I stopping now. So I feel like this is going to be an earlier, I mean, with the exception of people who have all the usual things that happen in life that can make that determination for someone. But the people initially who get selected, who are participating, they'll know quickly whether or not they've bitten off more than they can chew in their own personal lives. And so that list probably won't be terribly stale early. So I think going back for another round of applicants is something I think we should just think about in the future if it comes up as necessary.
[Graham]: Member Reinfeld, did I see your hand?
[Reinfeld]: Yes, we did not address the question of Ms. Hodgkin. Yes. So I would certainly support putting her as a non-voting member in the same capacity as Principal Fallon. It does bring us to an even number, which may or may not, although not voting, not on the voting, just in the room, I guess it's just pushing the numbers up. Are we like, and I was also looking back, is MEEP represented in Medford Family Network? How are those, when we're talking about all the programs in the building, how are those represented here?
[Graham]: Sure, so I'm just gonna add this so I can finish my thought.
[Reinfeld]: And thank you for being here, how you come in.
[Graham]: So Joan has responsibility over MEEP and reports to the superintendent, of course. The MFN, am I correct that the MFN reports to Ms. Galussi? Is that correct? Okay. Yes, that is correct. Okay, so they are sort of covered by extension through both voting and non-voting members.
[Reinfeld]: Fantastic, thank you.
[Graham]: Is there a motion to approve the two changes, one to 3B and to seven?
[Ruseau]: Motion to approve.
[Graham]: Aye, aye. Motion to approve by member Rousseau.
[Ruseau]: Second.
[Graham]: Seconded by member Olapade. Roll call.
[Ruseau]: Member Bramlin.
[Graham]: Can you give us a thumbs up or a thumbs down? You can all hate me for this. I'm so sorry.
[Reinfeld]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: It's all good now. Member Graham.
[Reinfeld]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Olapade. Yes. member of McLaughlin's absent. Member Reinfeld?
[Graham]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Reverso, yes. Mayor Langenfeld is absent.
[Graham]: Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, motion passes. Okay, next section, directs the superintendent to create an application form for membership in the building committee by five o'clock Friday, March 8th. So that is a week from Friday to go out in the weekly newsletter. And there's a series of questions being asked that we reviewed earlier, but full name, full address, contact information. Why do you want to be on the building committee? Are you related to a current school committee member? And if so, how? Will you require an interpreter? Do you have access to a computer and an internet connection to participate in Zoom meetings? Are you a teacher or staff member at Medford High School? Do you have experience in school building projects? If so, please explain. Do you have experience in large program communications and or management? If so, please explain, not complain. What other relevant expertise or unique perspective do you bring to the process? Are you a Medford public school student? Are you a caregiver of a Medford public school student? If so, please list grade in schools. Can you commit to a minimum of twice monthly committee subcommittee meetings held on Monday evenings for approximately two hours beginning at 6 p.m. and held in person? Can you commit to participation through the entire eligibility phase of the project, which may extend through January 26, 2025? Are you willing and able to commit to this appointment through the entire life of the project, which may last up to seven years? Will you actively support and participate in a public campaign to secure funding from Medford's taxpayers to pay for aspects of the project not directly supported by MSBA? A series of demographic questions including age, gender identity, sexual orientation, household income, educational attainment, what language you mainly speak at home, racial and ethnic identity, and disability status. And finally, are you a registered voter? And if yes, please indicate your ward and precinct. And then just a little bit further on the application, the form will be posted to the website and communicated through the usual mechanisms the district uses, including translations to predominant languages on Friday, March 8th. The form will open on Friday, March 8th and close on Tuesday, March 26th. Valid applications must meet all requirements submitted within the application period. The applicant must be a current resident of Medford, Massachusetts. The applicant cannot be a close relative of a Medford school committee member, i.e. children, parents, siblings, or spouses of children's parents or siblings. All the required elements of the application have been completed. Questions about this section? I'll make it a little bit smaller. Maybe we can get it all in one place. Maybe not. Any questions, comments?
[Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld? We need to add email address or phone number. How do we contact these people? Whoops.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay.
[Reinfeld]: Thank you. And then do we want to know if they are a teacher or staff at a different school in Medford? We have high school. I was torn on this, and so I... I guess that's a good question.
[Graham]: Thoughts? Member Ruseau?
[Ruseau]: I don't think so. I mean, if they are, that's fine. They're just applying as a member of the community. I think when we think about selection, which not all of these questions are about selection, but this one certainly seems like it is. You know, we may, I certainly would want to include a Medford High teacher who is applying. So if they're not a teacher at Medford High and they're at a middle school or elementary school, you know, that doesn't seem, I mean, it's not that it's not relevant. They may have all these other skills and we're going to pick them anyways, but the fact that they're at the Missittook, in my mind, doesn't really provide the focus of what we're looking for in the people who will be on the committee. I just envision we're going to have plenty of people applying.
[Reinfeld]: If it were me, I'd be putting it in other relevant or Yeah, I want to be there. And just to make sure, just to confirm that Medford High School encompasses vocational actually, and I suppose Curtis Tufts as well, because we are looking at whether or not this becomes one facility.
[Graham]: That is a good catch.
[Reinfeld]: Thank you.
[Graham]: Any other, um. Questions about This list. Um I actually did get a note. Um also So I wanted to put that on the table for consideration as well in this section. We could add it here if there is agreement on that. Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: Yes. I mean, I understand why. I would just wonder about Well, first of all, if we're going to do this, then it really needs to end up being a policy that all of our requests to the community of this nature go through the DEI office. And, you know, there's nothing particularly special about this part on this particular thing. We have done this at least three other times or four other times since I've been on the committee. and we've not done that, although there hasn't always been a DEI office. So, I mean, I think I would be okay with it if we thought about it in the context of all community surveys we're doing. And I do worry that the DEI office doesn't work for us. We have no authority there. They have no authority here. So if we send it over and they don't get around to it, which I mean, I don't doubt for a second they'll take it seriously and quickly work it, but we're putting somebody in the critical path who has no authority over us and we have no authority over them. And I feel a little uncomfortable with it from a simple process perspective in doing that. Not at all concerned about the content of the response, but also if we do send it there, we do have to have, the assumption is we're gonna have to have another meeting to do this, to deal with the response. So if the DEI office says, I would change the wording on this and I would change the wording on that, and we've just approved this wording, then we're having another meeting to approve the recommendations or not approve the recommendations of DEI office, which by the way, might also be an uncomfortable situation where we're like, we like this wording, we use this in education, and the DEI office says we should use this wording. I don't particularly have an interest in that kind of like, well, who's right? Which way should we go? We can't call the DEI office to come to our meeting and provide input. They don't, they're completely separate part of the government. So that's sort of my concern, not at all with what the content of a DEI office reviewing it would be.
[Graham]: Member Lopate.
[Olapade]: This isn't so much a part of that. That is a good point, or I see the suggestion from members. So another thing I'm noticing with this section, section, you know, 0.8, you know, subsection was at six. The point about requiring an interpreter, I think that we should also be considerate of the fact that this application, is it going to be in other languages or is it only going to be English? Because I think that that will then restricts or limit the amount of people who are going to actually be able to be involved, even at the application phase, because if they may need to require an interpreter, I'm going to wager that their ability to actually read the English language might be limited as well, potentially. So I think that we should consider, do we want to try to have this translated to the most immediate next spoken languages in the community. Does that matter to us? Things like that. Just because, you know, if we're gonna have an interpreter and we say we wanna do that, I think that it also should happen, you know.
[Graham]: And member Olapade, we do provide for that in this language here and translations into the predominant languages. So that's about the application form. So we're good. Member Ruseau?
[Ruseau]: Yes, I mean, there's also this very uncomfortable thing that we aren't talking about that I think happens in circles in government when we're having these conversations where we're like, we want to include people whose primary language may not be English or they may not speak English at all. And then we kind of have to come up with reality. And I hate to use the word reality because it sounds like I don't know. It's a very awkward conversation, because if everything had to be, if they had to have an interpreter at every one of these meetings, we have 270 days. It does not have any exception for whether or not everything is interpreted. So if we couldn't conclude this process in 270 days because we were translating on the fly in every meeting the entire conversation going on, would we be able to finish this process? And that's an important question. So it really gets to the root of the fact that government isn't designed for inclusion, 100%. It's designed around an assumption that everybody's speaking English. how we would want to handle that. If we have an applicant who is an expert in all these things and we want this person to be on there, we're going to have to have a conversation around funding because we're going to have to fund an interpreter for all these meetings and all these documents. Then we're going to have to sit down and have a hard look about how much additional time would we be required to complete the process if we were on the fly I mean, I don't think we run any zoom meetings that I'm aware of in the city where every single thing is being interpreted for a participant of a board into another language. And it would all have to be interpreted for them to be a proper participant in the board. So it's a very challenging. thing that I think, I wish there was an easier answer, but I think that's sort of the elephant in the room on this issue. And I think we, of course, should cross that bridge when we get there. But it's something that I think about and I worry about because I would want to be able to include people who are not speaking English or, you know, using sign language. I just worry about how we would actually accomplish that. But that's a different story.
[Graham]: Are there any other questions, comments, or changes to this section?
[Reinfeld]: Not to the application, I just want to make sure that the application is posted with the necessary context of the goals of the committee that I think is outlined early on, right? It can't just be a form. Perhaps it's a resolution and that explains what our goals are and who they're joining.
[Graham]: I will work with Thomas to make sure that the form includes all of that.
[Reinfeld]: before I think I think the goals that we outlined are really helpful to say this is this is what this committee is looking to achieve. And yeah, I agree. I agree.
[Graham]: Is there a motion to approve the changes that we have made? There's changes to 8A3 and 8A8.
[Reinfeld]: And the shifting of the numbers with the addition. Yes. Motion to approve.
[Graham]: Motion approved by Member Reinfeld.
[Ruseau]: Second.
[Graham]: Second by Member Olapade. Roll call.
[Ruseau]: Member Bramley.
[Graham]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Graham]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Olapade. Yes. Member McLaughlin is absent. Member Reinfeld. Yes. Member Ruseau. Yes. Mayor Lungokirn is absent.
[Graham]: Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, motion passes. It is 6.14, but we are in the home stretch, so hopefully we can make our way through these last four things pretty quickly. Number nine, directs the school building committee chair, mayor, and superintendent to review the applications and provide a recommendation to the Medbridge School Committee for The appointment of one Medford City Councilor, one school committee member, and seven community members no later than April 8th, 2024. Further directs that the superintendent will provide all valid applications to members of the Medford School Committee upon request. Number 10, directs the school building committee chair, mayor, and superintendent to recommend the vice chair of the school building committee no later than April 8th, 2024. Number 11, directs the superintendent to announce the school building committee on the district and project website no later than one week following the approval of the school building committee membership by the Medford School Committee. And number 12, directs the school building committee to hold its first meeting no later than May 1st, 2024. All meetings are public meetings and will be conducted in accordance with the open meeting law using Robert's Rules of Order. Questions, comments, thoughts?
[Reinfeld]: I worry a little bit about getting all community members up to speed on Robert's rules of order, but if that's how open meeting has to be, that's how it has to be.
[Graham]: The mayor has been able to secure training for other commissions. I believe the Charter Study Committee went through a similar process, so we'll bring in somebody to help accelerate that process, I believe. Great. The other request that the mayor had was to potentially move the April 8th date. April 8th is a committee meeting. The next committee meeting is not until the 29th of April. And so we would, if we did move that, we would also have to move our, we would have to sort of slide our May 1st date and our report to the school committee on May 20th. So that was the other question she asked us to consider in this meeting. So I will open that to the floor. Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: I certainly appreciate that the mayor wants that this is, recommendation. My concern is just that our eligibility opens on May 1st, and that is not something that we can slide or change. The state has determined that, and it happens whether we're ready or not. And if we do move it later than April 8th, then we will certainly not be having our first building committee meeting on the 1st, and people will still not have had a chance to be trained in open meeting law. And Robert's rules. And I feel like we're going to be moving into the middle of may before the first meeting happens. And, you know, that whole, what's that process they have in meetings if the forming and norming that has to happen. So we're going to be in June before this committee is doing any real work. I just very much. understand that April 8th feels like it's around the corner because my Lord, it really is. But because of April vacation, I would not be in favor of that move because it really just kind of hoses us on the May 1st start date. And as I think everybody here knows, we do not want to be dilly-dallying. That's the technical term.
[O'Connor]: I completely agree. I completely agree with that. Absolutely, we cannot wait.
[Graham]: Okay. So superintendent, maybe what we can do is set a meeting. I know the mayor's calendar is challenging, so maybe we can set a meeting now in anticipation of when we can begin that work to put the recommendation together for the committee so that we are ready for you.
[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: I was going to actually offer a friendly amendment because of the April vacation week. Since April 8th is a scheduled regular meeting, is it possible that the committee would be open to just doing an additional special meeting on a different date other than the 8th?
[Graham]: We could do that. I wondered though, if we, I think we will also have budget meetings scheduled during that time. Am I? That is true. Yeah. So how about this? Maybe we leave it as it stands. And if we have to make some movement of the timeline, we can come back to the committee and let them know. member.
[Ruseau]: So yes, I you started to say something and that reminded me also that like open meeting law does allow scheduling related changes to happen without formal meetings or any postings of any sort. So this is actually part of the resolution for which we can just have a group email and that is acceptable. So I like the dates being written down so that we have a plan, but if they need to move for whatever reason, we can move them without scheduling a meeting to do all this work again, so.
[Graham]: Okay. Any other questions or comments? member. I felt yes.
[Reinfeld]: I have a question for Dr. Dr Edouard-Vincent. I'm wondering what the status of the project website is. As per the last resolution to set that up.
[X-UlsLTIb5Q_SPEAKER_09]: I will definitely be able to. I don't have a direct a formal answer right now. I will speak with Thomas and see if I'm able to get more information on that Thomas.
[Thomas Dalton]: Yeah, so we're just working on pinning down a domain, a URL. The URL from the resolution was already taken, unfortunately. Yeah, I just looked.
[Reinfeld]: It wasn't when we wrote it.
[Thomas Dalton]: Yeah, so Dr. Cushing's been working on getting a different suitable URL. I think we'll probably have that done very soon. And then it's just a matter of Lisa Miller, our website architect, and I will put together a kind of preliminary page and we'll get it published. We're just basically waiting to pin down a URL and then obviously to do the necessary work to pull one together.
[Graham]: Thank you. Member Ruseau, did you have your hand in the air?
[Ruseau]: I did. I feel like you said that I was gonna start singing a song about that. I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution as amended.
[Graham]: Motion to approve the resolution as amended by Member Ruseau. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Member Reinfeld. Okay, roll call.
[Graham]: Yes.
[Graham]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Graham]: I can second. Seconded by Member Branley. Roll call.
[Ruseau]: Member Branley.
[Graham]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Graham]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Olapade. Yes. Member Klockman is absent. Member Reinfeld. Yes. Member Soyes, Mayor Lungo-Koehns absent.
[Graham]: five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, motion passes, and the meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone. Thanks to your patience, guys. Thank you.
|
total time: 5.28 minutes total words: 832 |
total time: 17.8 minutes total words: 2910 |
total time: 18.47 minutes total words: 2494 |
total time: 2.05 minutes total words: 418 |
|
total time: 0.14 minutes total words: 1 |
|||