AI-generated transcript of Medford School Committee Special Meeting 02-29-24

[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing. There is a Zoom link here if there is anybody who still needs that and is watching on TV. https://mps02155-org.zoom.us.j.92843377810. Any questions or concerns can be shared with us via email. And if you are in the Zoom with us, you can raise your hand when we start fielding questions. And if you are submitting questions or comments via email, your comments must include your first name, last name, Medford Street address, and your question or comment. Our agenda, as approved by the school committee on February 5th, this meeting is to discuss the forming of a committee for the Massachusetts School Building Authority process. The resolution was 2024-10, offered by myself, member Rousseau, and member Reinfeld. Sorry, the resolution that we'll review tonight has been offered by myself, member Rousseau, and member Reinfeld. Before we get to that, member Rousseau, can you call the roll, please?

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Branley. Is presently absent. Does anybody know if she's planning to make it or not?

[Erika Reinfeld]: I'll message her but I don't know.

[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. Member Graham.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Here.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Oladele. Present. Member McLaughlin is absent. Member Reinfeld.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Present.

[Paul Ruseau]: Members, I was present and Mayor Lungo-Koehn is absent. I know we have somebody who is iPhone. I think that might be one of our people.

[Jenny Graham]: Member Branley, are you on? Okay.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld, if you could just let us know if you are able to... Yep, I texted. I'll let you know if I hear anything. Perfect.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so before we sort of dive into all the nitty-gritty of the resolution... She's on, but she has no internet. But she can hear us. Okay, great. So, Member Ruseau, if you can mark her present. That would be great. So before we dive into the resolution and the nitty gritty of the words, which I am anticipating that we'll do, we'll pull it up, we'll share screen, and we'll make any sort of edits and changes to it as we go. And then we will sort of see where that takes us. But before we do that, I just wanted to set the stage on a couple of the bigger chunks of the resolution. I have what I will apologize as the worst PowerPoint presentation of my career because it is minimally formatted and not my finest work, but I think it frames the discussion. Nicely, so I will start sharing.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Confirming that iPhone is member Branley. Okay, thank you.

[Nicole Branley]: Can you hear me? We can hear you now. Technical difficulties at the Branley's, I apologize. It's okay. Working on it.

[Jenny Graham]: All right, so can you all see my terrible PowerPoint? Great. Let me put it in slideshow mode so it's a little bigger. OK, can you all see that?

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: OK. So. The MSBA requires that we construct a school building committee that shepherds this project from now until completion. There are some requirements laid out in the regulations and is sort of the basis of how MSBA will evaluate our building committee and ultimately approve it. So that is a step that we will go through once the committee is formed, is that it will go to the MSBA's legal team and they will weigh in and say, yes, we believe this committee is appropriate for the scope and scale of the work. So what you see here is a sort of a listing by law, by reg, of what those requirements are. So In our case, many of these roles are sort of dual roles, but this is written broadly because it has to sort of accommodate for cities and towns and strong mayor communities and distributed communities that don't have a strong mayor system and they have a town manager. So there's lots of sort of iterations of all of this. For us, the requirements sort of roughly that apply to us our A, which is the local chief executive officer that is the mayor. B does not apply to us because we don't have a town administrator or town manager. At least one member of the school committee that applies to us, the superintendent of schools applies to us. The local official responsible for building maintenance applies for Medford. A representative of the office or body authorized by law to construct School buildings, I actually had some conversation with the MSBA, that means the mayor here in Medford, the school principal from the school in question, as well as a member who's knowledgeable about the educational mission and function of the facility. We'll talk about who satisfies those roles when we get into the weeds here in Medford. A local budget official or member of the local finance committee. So in our case, that is Bob Dickinson, who's the CFO for the city. And then the last piece is members of the community with architecture, engineering, and or construction experience. So that's what the MSBA requires by law just to set the stage. The next piece of the resolution talks a little bit about the goals that we're trying to keep in mind as we construct this committee. Once we turn our attention to some editing, we may decide that there's other things here. But what I tried to do was lay something out for everybody to react to and say, yes, I like it or let's change this or that. The big one is to plan comprehensively for all programming that currently resides at Medford High, which includes vocational, non-vocational 9-12 education, 9-12 athletics, Medford Family Network, Medford Community Schools programming, early childhood education, including but not limited to the MEET program in Kids' Corner. We think about this as a high school, but in fact, there's quite a lot that goes on in that building that is bigger than simply what happens in the 9 to 12 space. Number two is to consider whether placement of the Curtis Tufts Alternative High School on the campus will provide increased educational opportunities to enrolled students. Number three is to ensure a robust public input and stakeholder feedback at appropriate milestones throughout the project. Number 4 is to listen to educator and administrator input regarding the future of educational best practices and plans for the students of Medford. Number 5, create plans for a building that advances Medford's climate goals and achieves LEED version 5 certification to meet the Paris Climate Accords 2030 and 2050 targets. So we are building a school for 50 years, maybe more, hopefully more. And we have to be sort of thinking forward about what, what impacts on the environment that our building will have, and on our goals, and then moves efficiently and effectively through the building process in a manner that ensures students are able to learn in the new building as quickly as is feasible. So I think that's obviously very top of mind for everybody here. But that so that's sort of what I framed up as the goals. Member Ruseau, I see that we may have a student representative with us.

[Paul Ruseau]: Yes, I've already put her on.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, welcome Noah. Okay, the next piece of the resolution lays out some of the authority and responsibility of the chair of the committee, and that's me. But I wanted to outline my thinking about the kinds of things the school committee needs to be able to reasonably expect from the chair. The chair would recommend extensions of member terms subject to approval by the Medford School Committee. recommend replacement of non-participatory members subject to approval by this 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 then other committees that will ebb and flow over the life of the project depending on what's going on. Number four, work with the appointed committee to convene external advisory committees and consultancy on an as-needed basis. This committee will be out doing competitive bid processes for folks to do the feasibility study, for people to do schematic design, people to do building. This group will do that and so the chair will We'll work with the committee to convene those experts sort of in accordance with the rules and the regs of MSBA. Provide monthly updates to the school committee so that there is an ongoing flow of information back to the school committee, and then act in accordance with MSBA's rules and regs on behalf of the school committee. And then finally, just a note that our first update of the building committee's governing structure scope resources, community engagement plans, website, document management plans, and training sometime in May. So thinking that second meeting in the month of May. Overall, what is outlined in the resolution is a proposal that the committee would be 15 voting members. I had some conversation with the MSBA to understand what the rules and requirements are around voting versus non-voting members. And the answer is there are really no hard and fast rules about who must be a voting member and who can be a non-voting member, that that changes pretty dramatically community to community. But it's important to note that all these meetings are subject to the open meeting law, which does mean that voting members have to produce a quorum in order to be able to meet and they're subject to all the same rules that we are. So, from an appointees perspective, what this. What this resolution would do is formally appoint the people that you see on this slide. So that would be myself, the mayor, Dr. Edouard-Vincent, Mrs. Galussi, Dr. Cushing, and Ms. Cabral, who's the principal at Medford High. So we would be formally appointing those six people as voting members. We would also be identifying a number of non-voting members who will participate in the committee and be integral to the discussion and all of the work that goes on just as much as any voting member, but will not vote when it comes time to vote or be needed in the case of a quorum. So Bob Dickinson, who is our local budget official, is one of those folks. Somebody from the city who is a certified public purchasing official, that is a requirement of MSBA. And there is somebody in the procurement office who holds this certification who will be appointed to the committee, and I'm not sure about their name, which is why they are to be determined. Chad Fallon, who is the Director of the Medford Vocational School, Joan Bowen, our Director of People's Services, John McLaughlin, who's our Director of Buildings and Grounds, and Tom Dalton, who is our Director of Communications. So all would be appointed to the committee in a non-voting capacity. And then to fill out, so that's, that is, sorry, six members, six voting members. So we would be seeking applications to appoint nine additional members, one more school committee member, one city Councilor, and then seven open positions to fill out. who all would comprise voting members of the committee who are residents of Medford. So Medford public school teachers and staff who are residents of Medford are welcome to apply to fill any number of those seven spots. And then keeping in mind that we also need to be able to demonstrate that we have members of the community with architecture, engineering and or construction experience. who are on the committee as a requirement. So those seven open positions for residents could contain any mix of people with various skills. We're almost there. The last sort of final piece of the resolution talks about the questions that we'll ask on the application that we'll put out shortly if we are able to get through any edits to this process tonight. and obviously some of the basics, name, address, et cetera. We can go through this in detail, but really trying to understand why do you want to be on the building committee as a very important question. Really giving people an opportunity to tell us what excites them about this opportunity, and also give people an opportunity to let them tell us in their own words sort of how they are thinking about potentially being members of the committee. We do want to know if you are related to any member of the Medford School Committee, and then some sort of basic things that will help us facilitate meetings, whether an interpreter will be required and confirmation that people can participate actively in Zoom. So I think we will have a mix of meetings, but we want to make sure that people are comfortable with that format. and then trying to understand a little bit about the applicant. Are you a teacher or staff member? Do you have experience in school building projects? Do you have communications and management experience of large-scale programs like this? What other expertise do you have that you think is really relevant to tell us about? Are you a student? We'll want to know that. Are you the caregiver of a Medford public school student? If so, tell us about your student. And then confirmation that you can commit to twice monthly meetings that will be held on Monday evenings in person and potentially on Zoom over time. that you are prepared to commit through the entire eligibility phase of the project, which is through June 26, 2025, and that you are willing and able to commit to this appointment through the entire project, which may last up to seven years. So this first term, sort of the way it's proposed is that it would be through the eligibility phase, but the desire and expectation is that we're not turning over this committee and in sort of wholesale fashion. So we want to make sure people understand that this is quite a long commitment. It will be intense in various periods of time. And it's, it's, you know, somewhere between five and seven years of, of effort to see this project to fruition. We actively support and participate in a public campaign to secure funding from Everett's taxpayers to pay for aspects of the project not directly supported by MSBA. So I think that's really important to understand how people are thinking about the eventuality here, which is that we will have to pay for a project in some capacity. So MSBA, we hope will pay for lots of it, but there will be a taxpayer impact here. And we want to hear from people about their perspective on that in the application process. We'll ask some demographics questions just for us to be able to understand who's applying because I think this group has done a thoughtful job in past committee formations to make sure that there is representation from a wide variety of stakeholders on the committee and we need some of this information to help us understand who's applying and who hasn't applied so that we can put the best, most effective committee together that we possibly can. And then are you a registered voter? And if you are, what's your ward and precinct? So again, really thinking about representation. Okay, so that was in a very quick nutshell what we are here to talk about tonight, and I am going to pull up a copy of the resolution. And my proposal is that we would just spend some time going through it section by section and talk about any questions that you all have section by section as we go or any edits. So I'm gonna put this into suggestion mode so that you all can see any changes that are being proposed. So it makes it a little bit easier for people to sort of stick with us and track. Any questions so far, member Rousseau?

[Paul Ruseau]: Yes, I just, thank you. I just also wanted to clarify that this is not a, this committee will meet over the summer too. So it's definitely not a school year only committee. And obviously it will be up to the committee how much you're meeting and when, but this is not a just school year type of committee. So just an important consideration for people thinking of applying.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes, thank you. Okay. So the first portion of this, can you all see my screen again? Okay, great. The first portion of this resolution really does just simply reference the regulations that we're required to be bound by. So that's what all of this is here, all the way down through through the second, the first half of page two. So I am happy to read it out loud. And I'm also happy to take questions on this section if anyone has any.

[Erika Reinfeld]: I have to motion to waive the reading of the just long. I would love it if you did that. I would motion to waive the reading of the

[Jenny Graham]: Great motion to waive the reading by member Reinfeld. Seconded by member Rousseau. Roll call.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Branley. I'll come back. Yes, we can. Thank you. Member Graham.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapate. Yes. McLaughlin is absent. Member Reinfeld?

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: So yes, Mayor Lengelkern, absent. And I noticed that the other student representative, Darren has also joined us, Darren Thwap-Trump, so I just want to put that down in the minutes.

[Jenny Graham]: Welcome, Darren. Okay, so four, five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, motion passes. So I'm going to just ask if there are any questions about this first segment before we move on. Okay, moving on. So, oh. Yes. Dr. Edward-Vincent?

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Yes. Member Graham, I was going to ask possibly to add one friendly amendment. Is it possible to add two alternates? Because as Member Ruseau shared, that we'll be meeting during the summer if, for example, we have someone and they're not able to complete their term. Is it possible to maybe have one or two individuals that would be identified as alternates so that if someone, for whatever personal reasons, they're not able to maintain the commitment that you would have someone, one or two people who would be able to continue to be part of the building committee? So it's just a suggestion, but I just was thinking that As this is formally being set up, it might be a good idea to have one or two people.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Hold that thought until we get to the non-voting members because there may be an opportunity to identify additional non-voting members. We can talk about that in half of a page. Okay, so the next section is really the goals. So whereas the Medford School Committee seeks to establish a diverse representative and skilled building committee that complies with all the rules and regulations set forth by MSBA, and whereas the Medford School Committee has ambitious goals to move quickly, seamlessly, and comprehensively through the prescribed school building process with the following goals. One, plan comprehensively for all programming, currently residing in Medford High School, campus including vocational, non-vocational 9-12 education, 9-12 athletics, Medford Family Network, Medford Community Schools Programming Early Childhood Education, including but not limited to Medford Early Education Program, which is MEEP and Kids Corner. Number two, to consider whether placement of the Curtis Tufts Alternative High School on the MHS campus will provide increased educational opportunities to enrolled students. Number three, ensure robust public input and stakeholder feedback at appropriate milestones throughout the project. Number four, listen to educator and administrator input regarding the future of educational best practices and plans for the students of Medford. Number five, create plans for the building that advances Medford's climate goals and achieves LEED version five certification to meet the Paris Climate Accords 2030 and 2050 targets. And number six, moves efficiently and effectively through the building process in a manner that ensures that students are able to learn in the new building as quickly as is feasible. So I'll stop there and ask if there are any questions or comments about our goals section. Member Reinfeld?

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yep, so I think we, the committee, got an email earlier today about LEED certification and that school buildings, there is a different green certification called CHIPS that is really focused on school environments and indoor. So I would like to either change point five here to say LEED or CHIPS certification to meet the Paris Climate Accord and then either refer this to Medford's office of sustainability. I know our climate action plan references lead only, but either or invite someone from the sustainability office at the city to comment on that as a particular goal.

[Jenny Graham]: Member Ruseau?

[Paul Ruseau]: Yes, thank you. 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?

[Erika Reinfeld]: It's the HPS. I can put that in the document, I think, if that's useful. I got it yeah I just did I didn't have time to do the research, but what from what I've seen it seems like there's some really important milestones for schools that we should be thinking about as people using the building.

[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. I actually. I don't particularly. Not that I don't find the city's Office of Sustainability to be, I love them and 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, well, 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 the 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 that's a conversation for afterwards, not before that's that's fair.

[Erika Reinfeld]: I think that's perhaps then included in one of the consultancies that the next section is going to refer to that. Make sure that we have that consultancy in submitting our application.

[Jenny Graham]: OK, member Lapate.

[Aaron 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 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 we're garnering as much input as possible, just because that's a lengthy process that some parents and some community members might not be as able to respond when, you know, let's say a survey goes down 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.

[Jenny 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, 1st, 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. That's when there's lots of planned input that the folks that we hire to do that work will come in and do. I think it will change over time, but to me, it's a good call-out to think about in terms of 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.

[Joan Bowen]: Ms. 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.

[Paul 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 that 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.

[Jenny 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.

[Paul Ruseau]: Other questions about goals? Member So. Thank you. Could we put the New England chips before the word lead? Mm-hmm. 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.

[Erika 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.

[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Or I accept your revision to my amendment.

[Jenny 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?

[Aaron Olapade]: Motion to approve.

[Jenny Graham]: Motion to approve the changes outlined in the goal section by member Olapade. And I second it. Oh, great. Seconded by member Branley. Roll call.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Branley. Wait, am I muted? Sorry. Member Graham.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapate. Yes. Member Clacklin, absent. Member Reinfeldt.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Members say yes, Mayor Lungo-Koehn absent.

[Jenny Graham]: 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. Um, number 4 requires a report to be presented to the member school committee regarding the school building committees governing structure scope resources, community engagement plans, website and document management plans and training no later than May 20th, 2024. And number 5, establishes the initial term of members beginning April 15, 2024, which is the start of Medford's eligibility phase is May 1st, 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 1 through 5 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 6 and then we'll talk about the membership as one fell swoop. So number 6 requires the School Building Committee to comply with MSBA guidelines and align with but is 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 6? 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 requirements from MSBA that the various individuals fill, just to show sort of a tie between 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.

[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, a quick question when it comes to the non voting members for number 3 child found as the director of the vocational does it not make sense to have him be involved as a voting member as the as if we believe that the bill is going to stay in the same place and be the same composition that the vocational programs equally involved in that process of what's the needs are for that student body.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I actually, that's actually a 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 want to circle back to Dr. Edouard-Vincent's question about alternates and whether we want to consider adding not 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.

[Paul 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. 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, is it 15 voting members?

[Jenny Graham]: 15 voting members, yes.

[Paul 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 okay about that. I think that, you know, when we make the decision as to who those people are, you know, 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, you know, like we got this teacher who's also a building trades person and lives in Medford, like this is like a person should percolate to the top. And then, you know, where do we, How do we sort becomes a little uncomfortable, but I think if we're open about it and say, look, you know, 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 thought.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld. Yeah, I support the idea of alternates. I 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? their observers for the whole process. So what does it mean to be an alternate?

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: I just 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. 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 someone who has another expertise, but for the purposes of the building, we would really need to have the expertise of an engineer or someone else with a specific skill set that's being called out.

[Paul Ruseau]: Yes, thank you. It's funny, like the more we talk about it that 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. 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 who to pick. But when people apply initially, their own circumstances could change. Because we could be talking about five, six months from now and then you know, 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? You know, 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. Personally, I can't imagine volunteering to sit silently with my expertise on a topic- For five to seven years. With something I'm interested in and I want to 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, yeah, I guess that 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 going to 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Other questions, comments, thoughts?

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: I just was going to comment, I think based on the the new rationales that were presented, I would withdraw my recommendation for I actually feel like it, 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. It's almost like a moving target, and it's going to 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.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Do we need to put into this document the procedure for filling vacancies that arise, or is that something that the original appointed committee will say, if we lose members, this is our replacement plan?

[Jenny 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.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, and I because I agree with the process that member Ruseau out. I think it was member Ruseau outlined of 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. Member Ruseau?

[Paul Ruseau]: Yeah. My gut, of course, this is not based on anything, is that once people reach this threshold of being committed for a year, two years, they're going to 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, you know, like all the usual things that happen in life that can make that determination for someone. But, you know, 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 that 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Member Reinfeld, did I see your hand?

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes. did not address the question of Ms. Hodgkin. 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?

[Jenny Graham]: Sure. So I'm just gonna add this so I can finish my thought.

[Erika Reinfeld]: and thank you for being here.

[Jenny 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? Yes, that is correct. So they are sort of covered by extension through both voting and non-voting members. Fantastic, thank you. Is there a motion to approve the two changes, one to 3B and to 7? Motion to approve. Aye, aye. Motion to approve by Member Ruseau.

[Paul Ruseau]: Second.

[Jenny Graham]: seconded by a member of the party will call.

[Paul Ruseau]: Remember Branley.

[Nicole Branley]: You are going to come back or thumbs down. You can all hate me for this I'm so sorry. Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Remember Graham.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: I'm about it. Yes. member of the glass as a member right so yes, there are so yes, Maryland is absent.

[Jenny Graham]: 5 in the affirmative 0 in the negative 2 absent motion passes. Okay. Next section. Directs the superintendent to create an application form for membership of in the building committee by 5 o'clock Friday March 8 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 board 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 formal open on Friday, March 8th and close on Tuesday, March 26. 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.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Any questions comments member I felt that we need to add email address or phone number. How do we contact these people whoops.

[Nicole Branley]: Okay.

[Erika 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Thoughts? Member Russell?

[Paul 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 1 certainly seems like it is. 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.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah 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.

[Jenny Graham]: That is a good catch.

[Erika Reinfeld]: Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions about this list? I actually did get a note also requesting that we pass the application by the city's DEI office. 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.

[Paul 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 we I would be OK with it if we thought about 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're completely separate part of the government. So that's sort of my concern, not at all with what the content of the DEI office reviewing it would be.

[Jenny Graham]: Member LaPate.

[Aaron Olapade]: Uh, 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 is with. With this section, section, you know, 0.8, you know, subsection was at 6. the point about requiring an interpreter. I think that we should also be consider 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. Uh, restricts or limit the amount of people are going to actually be able to be involved, even at the application phase, because if they're going to, 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 interpret 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 going to have an interpreter and we say we want to do that, I think that also should happen, you know.

[Jenny 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?

[Paul 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 just, 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 that 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 and 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions, comments, or changes to this section?

[Erika 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 only this resolution and that explains what our goals are and who they're joining.

[Jenny Graham]: I will work with Thomas to make sure that the form includes all of that.

[Erika 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Is there a motion to approve the changes that we have made? There's changes to. 8A3 and 8A8.

[Erika Reinfeld]: And the shifting of the numbers with the addition of. Yes. Motion to approve.

[Jenny Graham]: Motion to approve by Member Reinfeld.

[Unidentified]: Second.

[Jenny Graham]: Second by Member Olapade. Roll call.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Bramley.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Olapade. Yes. Member McLaughlin is absent. Member Reinfeld. Yes. Member Urza. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn is absent.

[Jenny Graham]: 5 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 2 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 Medford 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 committee building committee 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?

[Erika 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.

[Jenny 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. And so we would if we did move that we would also have to move our we would have to serve 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 so.

[Paul Ruseau]: I certainly appreciate that the mayor wants that that this is. My recommendation I my concern is just that our our eligibility opens on May 1st and that is not something that we can slide or change that's 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 1st building committee meeting on the 1st and. People will still not have had a chance to be trained on open meeting law and Robert's rules. And I feel like we're going to be moving into the middle of May before the 1st meeting happens. And, you know, that whole what's that process to have in meetings of 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. I 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.

[Nicole Branley]: I completely agree. I agree with that.

[Jenny Graham]: We cannot wait. 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.

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: 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?

[Jenny Graham]: We could do that. I wondered, though, if we, I think we will also have budget meetings scheduled during that time. Am I?

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: That is true.

[Jenny Graham]: 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. Uh, member.

[Paul Ruseau]: So, yes, I, you started to say something and that reminded me also that, like, um, 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions or comments?

[Erika Reinfeld]: I have a question for Dr. Edouard-Vincent. I'm wondering what the status of the project website is as per the last resolution to set that up.

[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: I will definitely be able to, I don't have a formal answer right now. I will speak with Thomas and see if I'm able to get more information on that.

[SPEAKER_02]: 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. It wasn't when we wrote it. 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.

[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Member Ruseau, did you have your hand in the air?

[Paul Ruseau]: I did. I feel like when you said that, I was going to start singing a song about that. I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution as amended.

[Jenny Graham]: Motion to approve the resolution as amended by Member Ruseau. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Member Reinfeld. Okay, roll call.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Grambling?

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham?

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade? Yes. Member Reinfeldt?

[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Ruseau, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn is absent, and Member McLaughlin is absent.

[Jenny Graham]: Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, motion passes. Are there any other motions for tonight?

[Paul Ruseau]: Motion to adjourn.

[Jenny Graham]: Motion to adjourn by Member Ruseau. I can second. Seconded by Member Branley. Roll call.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Branley.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade. Yes. Member McLaughlin is absent. Member Reinfeld.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes.

[Paul Ruseau]: Members say yes, Mayor Longo-Kerr is absent.

[Jenny Graham]: Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, motion passes, and the meeting is adjourned.