So we can start the meeting at 6.32. And first order of business is public comment. Numbers of the public in the room other than Senator Pertzak, who's gonna participate in the discussion in just a few minutes. And we'll see if we have someone on Zoom. Amanda, you wanna go ahead, please. And we'll do the raspberry. I hope that I'm not old. We'll give you information. Love, paper, hand. He has been at a district with an IEP since he turned three and I am grateful for the love he has received from many educators with speech therapists. Occupational therapists and physical therapists, contractors. He's struggling to read, yes, in his accommodation due to his developmental disabilities, which include ADHD and many more. I can see the interaction between his frustration with reading, his loss of esteem, and a harassment incident he experienced at his after school program. Today I bring a lot of questions for you. I ask that a few emails with resources about his story documentary about reading instruction. And I have not seen any good conversations in the school for mediums about it. And what I have seen with this consistency from parents who have been advocating for their kids for the past two years. Here's a premise. Our district primarily relies on violent literacy instruction at a tier one past wrong level. And general education small group for writing and reading and funding instruction knowledge instructional programming is available that I know of. Today, this year we have spent 69,261 in relation to the teacher college of reading. The district has in the past is currently only provided district-wide teacher training and violence literacy instruction. The trainers are from the teachers college and they implement this. We also use the funds and finale assessment.  My question is, or many questions that I have, is how are my child and his peers of all abilities access to access science-based literacy instruction if our school district is the void of the assessment required to manage learning needs with teachers trained to offer highest quality science or reading instruction? How is my child and his peers of all abilities able to access science-based literacy instruction we are continuing to use methods that have been developed. The teachers college of reading was founded by Lucy Cochrane and she has made millions of dollars hard on my tiny children while we invested in furthering someone who's method or not supported by research and love a history of using methods contrary to evidence. Yes, she's made some changes. There's a New York Times article that Mark Steinberg and I quote says, he's a cognitive student scientist and he says that while he found some of the religions encouraging, he was concerned that objectionable concepts remain. The fact that NBNL assessment had many problems included the fact, and I quote, that the benchmark assessment system which is what we use was being tested for typical students. But they included in their study only proficient English students who were already reading at a great level. Now I'm gonna send you this document with some more researches. The last piece of it is that we use a three QN system which is dead wrong and it has been debunked and harmful and I believe it is harming my child ability to advance. If you have the chance to read my literacy public comment on the event and the literacy council, I will send it to you. The studies show that explicit phonemical awareness and phonics instructions which we do use a little bit of consistently provide a learning advantage. There are no such studies supporting three QN system and there's many articles I will send you about and research that shows the difference. As a district, we need better ways to verbalize the way that we use evidence. Data and also rely on qualitative data to carry out work for all of our kids. Qualitative data is our stories as parents and students is a big, is a big, is missing. I'm very nervous and shaking so if you don't understand it, let me know because my answer makes it triple. We need to do better now to pick teachers against parents. This is not about this. This is not why I'm here. Libby and I fundamentally disagree in our testimony against the dyslexia bill in 2020 where she states that the vast research showing that most students is identified with a special need, they follow further and further behind their peers. This is not the first time that I've heard this. I am not sure what the vast research is but I can provide other research that shows that the advantage of identifying children with learning difference early is cheaper than later on when they need intervention and they can't really touch up. So for the past year I have seen Henry's life get dimmer and his music was being quiet and down. He has come home crying.  He's seven years old. He was screaming in the back that he hated himself every bit of him. Okay? In a few occasions in his after school program, he was all repeated by other kids big head with his small brains. His sister was there to defend him and probably the only reason why I found that. I'm not here about that but I'm here because this is a systemic issue and we need to correlate it. Reading a strapling is also correlated with low self esteem issues and he's feeling it. This is a systemic issue. Reading is an equity issue. Recent data shows that English language learners performs significantly worse than non-English language learners and blacks and American Indians or Alaska natives performs significantly worse than white students and other racial groups. If you look at the data from the corrections department who has youth and who are educated on youth who ended up in the corrections department, they have extremely low literacy level. Here's a pipeline and we need to do better. A special education audit is currently underway and the only parent input was the survey. Not sure that it's been a collaboration. I have heard in Vietnam team working hard to make systems for what about the kids that cannot wage for a system that is not already. I know my kid can't wait and I will give him what he needs but all that might not be able to. He's probably gonna get him a tutor and we're gonna be. Somebody said that education here is a rich man's game. I don't know what that means but it means that if you have the opportunity to get the resources that you need, you'll get it and if you can't, you can. So I really hope that at the board you have the conversation and help the state make decisions to give our kids what they need. This is not just about Henry but about many kids in our district. There's a design principle that I really love that is will you change at the margin from an accountable, accessible and collaborative process rather than as a point in the process? I hope we use this principle in our district to work collaboratively with parents and with other experts that know. We are not here as part of some other institutions we are here as parents getting the resources that they need. Thank you for your time. Great, thank you. We appreciate the comments, very well stated. Any other public comment? I'm not. Just another hand. I don't. Thank you, Anne. Please have Anne. Oh, hey, Grace. And for those of you who don't know me, I'm Grace Pasden. I'm a parent of two children at UES. One is currently a fourth grader who is gifted in dyslexic and the other is a first grader who is bright and neurotypical. Both of my students have also struggled to acquire early literacy skills while at UES. And I'm sorry, this is emotional. I've reached out to this board about these issues before. I'm here tonight because I'm worried that many children in our district aren't learning to read and write proficiently, not for lack of ability, not for lack of caring on the part of teachers. That's very clear to me. But because our district doesn't use an evidence-based structure of literacy curriculum to teach foundational literacy skills. As Amanda already covered in some depth, my understanding from conversations with Mike Berry, other instructors in the building, is that many of our teachers at UES are using Lucy Cochens' Units of Study to teach reading and writing. And it espouses a balanced literacy approach which encourages SMV, which is structure-meaning visual system and that's commonly referred to as 3Qing, which has been shown by research to be an ineffective reading strategy that is utilized by four readers to compensate for a lack of decoding skills. And decoding skills are what you get through structured, direct, explicit, systematic, bonnix instruction. So in 2020, student achievement partners on nonprofit focused on improving student achievement, particularly for students facing barriers of racism and poverty, convened a panel of literacy experts to review units of study against the relevant research base, and they found it lacking in phonics and foundational skills building and supports for English language learners. Then in 2021, units of study was awarded a failing grade by ed reports, which is also an independent nonprofit that uses expert educators to review K through 12 curricula against common core standards. Finally, in 2021, Georgia Policy Labs issued a report of the study evaluating the impact of the Lucy Cochens program in the elementary schools in the Metro Atlanta School District. And given the available data, they found no evidence that the Lucy Cochens reading program had a positive effect on reading achievement gains in grades one through three. I'm also happy to share all of those reports with the board after the meeting. So are there students in our district who are succeeding in the current balance literacy curriculum used in many of our district classrooms? Of course there are. But that's likely because they're part of the 40% or so learners that research shows are gonna learn to read proficiently regardless of the instruction model. The evidence also tells us that the remaining 60 or so percent of students, which includes learners with specific learning disabilities, but also a majority of typical learners will only acquire reading proficiency to direct explicit and systematic structured literacy instruction. Both of my kids fall into that 60% category, one with a diagnosed learning disability and the other a brain typical learner. Both of them have struggled in their early academic career to acquire certain literacy skills. And both of them have lacked access to consistent evidence-based structured literacy instruction in their classrooms. And as one of the all said pretty eloquently, mentioned, while my partner and I are privileged, milk class, white professionals with all of the resources to pay out of pocket for learning evaluations and tutoring to meet our kids' needs, which we do because we love them and this stuff it's hard. We're worried about the kids who don't have those resources built and those are the kids that are gonna fall through the cracks. The heaviest burden is gonna be born by a prep BIPOC, English Language Learner, low income learning disabled and other marginalized students. And to the extent that this work cares about equity, which I personally know a lot of the folks on the board and I think you do, this literacy education piece is a big blind spot for the district and I'm asking you to do something about it. So, I didn't think I was gonna be this emotional. This is quite in the speech. But the question I wanna be with is, why would we ignore the settled body and evidence and continue to invest in a balanced literacy curriculum that teaches through tutoring? When we know, I mean, we've known for decades that nearly all students can and will learn to read proficiently with direct explicit structure of literacy instruction. Thank you. Thank you, Grace. Any other comments? There's some reason I'm not seeing hands. Is that it? Or was it? I didn't see it. No, I didn't see it. All right, thank you for that. We definitely, that is a subject we're paying a lot of attention to. So, we appreciate the feedback. Can I just request that was very much appreciate both of you showing up, Amanda and Grace. And if you wouldn't mind emailing us what you shared tonight, just so that we can fully understand it because it's a lot to take in just in hearing it. I would appreciate that. Thank you. No, thank you for that, Mia. Moving on to consent agenda. Do you have a motion to approve the consent agenda? I'll move to approve the consent agenda. I'll move a second. I'll second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, consent agenda moves or passes. We'll just close out the Zoom. So, next we're very fortunate to have several of our legislators here. I think what we envision is just kind of an open discussion. Also some introductions. I know there's some new folks in the legislature representing Washington County and Montpelier Roxbury and Roxbury and also some new board members. So, I'm thinking this is a quick introduction. And then I'd like to see the time to, the legislators to let us know what they feel is of importance in terms of education, what's on their plates, what we should be paying attention to. And I think we've got a few questions about some things like the PCB study, the equity weighting, our ballot, which we're gonna pass later that we'd like to discuss and maybe a few other items. So, let's just start with the board. I'm Jim Murphy, I'm the board chair. I've been on the board since I think 2016 if memory serves. And I live in Montpelier and I'm an environmental lawyer with National Law Life Federation for my day job. Mia. Thanks Jim. Hi Andrew. Hi everyone, I'm Paul. I'm Mia Moore. I'm a Montpelier representative to the school board and I'm also a parent of three kiddos in the district. And this is my, I think I'm going into my third year on the board. And yeah, my day job is doing coaching and consulting to help managers and teams work together in equitable and inclusive and collaborative ways. So I work for myself doing that. Hi, I'm Aniket Kulkarni. I've been on the board since 2020. So, finishing of the third year. I live in Montpelier as well and we have a daughter who's in the high school. And as in my day job, I own a software development and consulting company. So I've enjoyed being on the board the last three years and I've learned a lot. Thank you. Rhett Williams, I live in Roxbury. I have two first graders and a senior in the district and I work for the department of mental health. Hi Andrew, Kristen Gettler. Hi Anne and Kate. My name's Kristen Gettler. I am a resident of Roxbury. I have a second grader here at Roxbury Village School. I serve on the facilities and energy committee as well as the equity committee for our board. And my day job is I'm the assistant director for CVSU After School and I co-manage our small family farm. Thanks for being here. Hi, I'm Lynn Turcott. I'm representing Montpelier. This is my fourth board meeting having been appointed to fill in a vacancy. So I'm a serious catch up duty, but I am planning to run and try to be on for another three years. I have an interest in boards and community service. I've been on a number of boards and I'm a retired clinical psychologist. And I have two grandkids in the Montpelier school system. So I'm interested in, and I've worked in the schools. I'm interested in educational issues. I've got, of course, Mike. Most important by, we have three kids in the school. Oh, and I'm on the equity and the IAM negotiations. Libby? Oh, I'm Libby Bowie-Steele. I live in Jericho. I'm the superintendent of the schools. I'm Merrick Moden. I'm a student representative on the board since last February. I'm Jill Remick. I'm a Montpelier resident and I'm also the Montpelier Rexbury School Board representative on the Center Vermont Career Center Board. I also have a high school student in Montpelier and I work at the tax department in my day job. Two members on Zoom. Seiji and Emma, do you wanna introduce yourselves quickly? Yep, my name is Seiji Ohashi. I live in Montpelier. I'm coming up on one year on the school board. I have two kiddos in the system and I work for the agency of digital services for the state. Hi, I'm Emma Bay-Hansom and I represent Montpelier. I have two kids in the school district and I serve on the policy committee and select as an energy committee. And I was a teacher for a while and now I'm working for Vermont Higher Education Collaborative and we do professional development for teachers. Good opportunity to come to these small schools that we have in Vermont. I always enjoy it. I'm Andrew Perkslick. I represent the Washington Senate District, which is all of Washington County, plus Stowe, plus Orange, plus Braintree. This will be my third term. And the first two terms, I was on education so spent a lot of time on education policy. Had the joy of talking to Superintendent Bonesteel very often in that committee. The literacy comments that we heard at the beginning, we talked a lot about that. Really found that interesting but had an opportunity to move to a different committee. So this year I'm on appropriations and the Vice Chair of Appropriations and so we'll be looking at education issues from the kind of appropriations side, but still have an interest in education for sure. It's an all new, all the education Senate committees all new except for the chair. Everybody is new, but there's some good people including a teacher. Ann? Ann Watson? That doesn't matter. Either Ann. Yeah, there's two ways. I'll follow up for Andrew. Senator Incomings, I am the senior senator and one of the few returning seniors to the Senate. I chair finance and for two years I did chair education. I live in Montpelier. I put four children through the Montpelier school system. I've got great kids in Vermont school systems but the closest ones I have to grandsons in Barry town. Do follow education as closely as I can. And my committee is responsible for the education fund. Read that property taxes. So I do and I see a lot of children in her day job. Great, well, my name's Ann Watson. I am the newest senator from the Washington district and I just want you to know I'm joined today by my little human here who is just finished dinner and this is actually why I'm not there in person right now. I'm on childcare duty right now. So, but I'm psyched to be here. I know many of you already as I am also a teacher in the district that I teach physics and engineering and math. And yeah, I am on the natural resources and energy committee. I'm actually the vice chair of that committee and I'm also on government operations. And I don't want to get too far ahead but we did just today vote out of committee a bill that I think is gonna be relevant to you all. So, happy to jump in about that when it's time. Okay, and Kate? Yeah, I'm Kate and I can relate to your newest board member who's been there at this or fourth meeting. This is my third week at the state house. So I am learning all the time. I am on the house and committee. We've been hearing a lot of testimony on public property tax monies going to pay for independent schools. And today we were talking with folks from the principal's association and superintendent's association and the AOE about the workforce shortage. So I'm very concerned about recruitment and retention of teachers in our schools. I have two daughters here in Montpelier. I do live in Montpelier. I have a daughter at Main Street Middle School in eighth grade and then my oldest has just gone off to college this fall. I have a teacher also, like Ann Watson. I teach at U32 High School and I teach math there. Looking forward to your conversation. Yeah, I know, thank you everyone. I think we'll kind of whoever wants to take the lead in terms of talking about some things that are on the flight. You know, again, I've raised a few issues that I think are on our mind. Obviously, you know, the weighting study and the implementation of that, which is gonna have an impact on our bottom line. You know, the PCB study, which we know is out there and has been a big issue in Burlington and we have at least one building that was built in the kind of fifties, which we know was an era where there's definitely the potential for PCBs to be in the building. Two buildings and this building. Okay. And then I'll just raise it now. The way this has kind of come up during our conversation because we have the budget we're passing or we are gonna pass tonight most likely has about a 9.4% per pupil increase. But as you probably obviously know from being on the Education Committee, with the crazy tax formula, it's a modest tax increase for the modular residents. I think about 1.3% and it's actually a tax decrease for the Roxbury residents. But with the legislation as it's written, the way it appears on the ballot, it looks like it's a 9.4% increase. So, you know, we have concerns, our business manager has concerns about just the way that appears on the ballot unless the voter comes in educated about what all those numbers mean.  So, we just wanted to at least alert that as something the legislature might want to take up if it's not thinking about it. So, yeah, so I'll turn it over to you unless there's others wanna, you know, throw a question they know they want answered before they start speaking. Waiting study is I think gonna be a huge transformational change to our education funding as it rolls out. We're just, we're having rolled it, we're just in the first year, it's a five year rollout so we're not gonna really see the impacts right away. I think, you know, that was by design. It gives tax department everybody more time to get used to it in the towns to get used to that transition as it happens. So, there's not really anything to report on that other than still going forward and we'll see and I'm assuming you're getting better data than you did before when we were trying to figure out how it's gonna impact everybody as your student body changes and you can look at the numbers. So, there's nothing right there. I've heard issues around the ballot wording. I seem to remember that there is some opportunities to write about what the tax increase is and so I don't, but I agree with you. If they just see the 9% even though other parts of the language to talk about the tax increase being not an issue that they might still vote against it. Happy to do that, that would be a good issue for government ops to address, I think, but the Education Committee could deal with it as well. I mean, the issue that I feel like was undone in my time in education was with facilities which ties in so it was a big part of the lead study that we did in all the schools that we thought was gonna be horrible and it turned out not to be as bad. We were able to change out a lot of the faucets and things that without having major multi-million dollar projects, but then we wanna move on to the PCVs and that could end up being more than the schools can handle like in Burlington. Hopefully we don't have false Google teardowns like that that more of it will be like Cabot where they find one building and we'll see what all the remediation plan is at those smaller schools. It's still gonna be more expensive than the schools can really handle. So today had a meeting about like, how are we gonna fund these, not only the PCV remediation, but all the other deferred maintenance that all our schools have. Basically you can't walk into a school without noticing this or that hasn't been taken care of because the school boards are trying to save money. They don't wanna have that huge tax raise on the ballot. So, and we haven't had school construction aid from the state for 12 years or whatever it is. So that discussion, we were getting a report in October. That's the assessment of all the schools. We had an inventory and I really wanna finish that work that I kinda started on the Education Committee about making sure that the state supports our schools and making sure we have functional buildings, have actual good air quality, whether it be for pathogens but also just oxygen in the room is important obviously for learning and we have a lot of classrooms in Vermont that don't have proper ventilation. And so ventilation, HVAC, plus everything else is gonna be hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and I don't want the state just to say, oh, that's too much money. So working today on a plan for how we're gonna address that. So that's the main education thing that I'm trying to work on. It's like, I don't know who on Zoom wants to start off. The Finance Committee, Senate Finance is the committee that last year, I probably don't have to tell you, the Ed Fund was pretty flush two years ago in COVID yet. We were told to anticipate a $150 million deficit and we ended up with a $90 million surplus. Thanks in large part to the federal stimulus which got sent out to families, people that didn't need it to buy food and shelter. I used it as they should. They stimulated the economy and they bought a lot of things online. Sales tax is our main source of income right now or one of them for the Ed Fund and it's our lot of money coming in. We also know that that federal stimulus is gone. If you just bought a washer and dryer or a big screen TV or a car, you're probably not gonna buy another one next year. And so we are looking for a good shape. This year we had the report from our state economists last year. They are still hoping for a soft landing out of this economic boom with not a recession but could have one. And so we're trying to find a way to use what is essentially one-time money well. Last year we put it's up to 34 million into a fund because we knew we're gonna have some clean up from the CDGs and wanted to have some money set aside. That was just the amount of money we could set aside. It has no relationship to the possible costs but cleaning up oxen in the schools would use for one-time money. Hopefully we'll be able to put some aside. We're also trying to balance that against the need to tax rates down. And this year we're seeing the huge spike in housing costs and CLA and a lot of billiards doing a reappraisal. So we're not getting probably the CLA's but a large number of counts are which is just putting your tax rates through the roof plus concern that people who were income protected in their house fell under the limit that is protected. Now five and that same house for several hundred thousand dollars more than it was two years ago. They may find themselves exposed to higher property tax bills. So we will be taking a look, I think Jill's coming in. Tomorrow? Yeah, tomorrow. Didn't talk to us. There's things we can adjust in the formula but that's what we're looking at right now. Trying to find that balance and to have some money there to help you. We went through the amount that our bonding capacity has been cut. When I first came to the Senate I was on institutions which does the bonding. And at that point we were somewhere around 9,100 million dollars we could bond for, we're now down to six days. Our bonding capacity has been significantly cut by the bond bank. We know that we are going to have to find a way a way into that facility study to help schools help with a lot of deferred maintenance. For all the deferred maintenance you may have there are schools that a lot of people wouldn't send their dogs to that really have some significant just sanitation problems that needs to be cleaned up. And we know that if we don't find a way to fund it with other state funds you're going to borrow bond for it. And that cost is going to go into the end fund and everybody's going to share but it's going to basically lose everybody's property taxes. And I think none of us want to see that happen. So I'll tell you, we're working on that, no easy things. I think you said our comments. Anna Kate? Yeah, I'm happy to jump in here. So just today the Senate GoPOPs committee Senate GoPOPs committee cast H42 which is really an extension of the COVID provisions for open meeting law. So it would allow municipality, well so legislative bodies that are municipal as well as school boards to meet fully remotely if you wanted to. So that's one aspect of it. But I think the most relevant piece is it suspends the requirement to have specified language around the budget ballot item. And so I know there's better requirements about the language board, like how school budgets are raised on ballot and my understanding is that with the changes to the equalized people waiting that language can then change in 2020 in that in this year's 2020 five but we're not in this year's 2020 five. So this bill also sort of extends down to now the suspension of that requirement. So there is no suggested rephrasing of a ballot language. So it just says the ballot language requirements ended during the years 2023 and 2024. So I'm going to defer to the other senators as to how the process goes from here but it is now passed both the House and the Senate. And so I expect that to pass out of the Senate in general probably pretty soon. So there's gotta have to be in place by the 26th of January. So that is certainly motivational for us to get this done. Great, that is great to hear. Can I ask a separate question now? If we vote on the ballot language tonight and what Ann just described, what Senator Watson just described won't really affect this year's budget. Unless we make a motion that would give say, Libby or Christina the ability to change that language it's the legislation changes which we could do. Oh, okay. Should be my suggestion. Okay. Let's look at that language today in this finance committee because it could impact school taxes or something if it influences how people vote. We didn't have the bill but we did have Secretary French in, I gathered that the tax commissioner was into the House committee. The administration opposes removing that language. They think that coming out of all the arbitra funds that people should be able to have some idea. If they oppose it enough to veto it, nobody knows. But they were clear that they said they had a whole lot of impact and didn't want to slow down the bill in any way. So left it out to the Democrats. Yeah, we had that same testimony today as well. And part of the thinking around that is I guess that was originally a part of a couple of requirements that would have been potential cost containment. But we asked him directly if the administration feel that this was an effective cost containment measure. He said we don't think about it in that way. It was more about transparency rather than a cost containment mechanism. I appreciate your work on that. Kate, or do you have a question? Kate? Well as I sent an email, we don't have sort of two news but to comment on the things you wanted to talk about tonight I will say that as a teacher I, my priorities like recruitment and retention. Teachers, I think we heard today in testimony that there are over 1400 positions that are unbuilt in the state of Vermont. And I'd like to see us move in the direction of fully stocking our schools to start with. And I know that comes down to some really hard decisions that legislatures are gonna have to make around housing and childcare. We're going to get folks to come around the state. We're gonna talk about growing your own program so that we can move folks out of a pair of jobs and maybe into classroom teaching and also work with our higher ed folks. So there's that. And also as a taxpayer in Montpelier, I share the concerns of some of the folks on the board who are looking at possibly being taxed out of our homes. And I'd like to see us do some real good work around reforming how we pay for schools. And if I may, just to put a bug in your ear, potentially loan forgiveness for special educators in particular is what my main concern would be but something from the legislative branch around loan forgiveness may go a long way as well. Yeah, that was suggested by the Association of Principles, Jane Nichols. Yeah, I would second that. I think especially attracting teachers to the state, that's an entry barrier for a lot of folks. I think it would make it very attractive for especially younger or newer teachers to wanna come here. Well, thank you. Questions or comments from the board? Yeah, we need to bring it up. That's the income-based education funding discussion. Senator Cummings and I were on the study committee over the summer and fall to look at it. There's a report out that doesn't say whether we should do it or not but says if the legislature was to do it, here's how you would set it up. And there's definitely some people that are interested in exploring that further. And I'm one of them, I don't know if we're gonna do it this year or anything but I think it could really change the way homeowners think about how the funding is made for their local schools and not so tied to their property and all this complicated, it still is gonna be complicated but we're gonna make it a little less complicated and less worried about the income and the value of your home not matching and being pushed out of your home for that reason. Yeah, and not just that, I think just general support for education with Vermont having an aging population, you do have a lot of people whose income is kind of more of a retirement income but they've had their house for 30, 40 years, it's way more valuable than when they bought it and they don't have kids in the school so they're not connected to the schools and I know that a lot of people out kids in the school still are strong supporters of the school but it can be a little different when you don't have kids in the school and you're being pinched in terms of how you feel about that. I know you like the Manhattan out of the Marshall Hills and they have conversations with people that know our income sensitized but they're still gonna vote against the budget because they just think it's gonna affect their taxes like, you know, so they're, I think that as a large psychological effect on people even with our progressive nature that we have of the property tax, it still impacts it. And I would also say that Kate gave the data point of 1,400 openings when I left education committee in May, we only had 1,000 open so we're heading in the wrong direction and that's really sad to hear. With our districts and districts across the state, my wife's a teacher in Washington Central District and they're struggling to stop you know, you did Kate's district so. Representative McCann, yes. Oh, Kate, thank you for noticing. Sure. Yeah, go ahead. No worries, I have two things to say. I think we need to watch the fact that those numbers are going out like Senator Perks once said, that means that people are leaving during this school year and that's a real problem to deep an eye on and I also, I need to hang up here and join another meeting on public banking but I just wanted to shout out to our phone so I can see you on the board, Kate. Thank you. Keep up the good work. Great, well thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to join us. Thank you for the invitation. Yes, and good luck with your first term. Other questions or comments? The first was. We talked about that but since that wasn't part of the that committee's charge, we didn't put that in the study but that is something that's being discussed in the state house on how to have second homes have a, because we just have the two residential and non-residential basically so can we have a third category of second homes basically? I said our companies, do you want to get in? No, I'm, the big question is if we go to income for education what will that do to the general fund which depends on the income tax to fund everything else? All the community based services which are mental health services that I know this school really needs more of. So that's part of it. It can take it out what happens and then it's been made quite clear that the town will fill out some of that not all of that property tax you know that you vacate. So we've got a lot of questions there. I am anticipating that there will be a bill and that there will be some further deployment to second homes. We cannot differentiate between in-state and out-state. We have to tax everybody equally. We're still waiting to see the impact on the child tax credit that we put in last year the largest tax credit ever. We're not sure what that, and along with several other tax credits we did we're not sure what that will do to revenue. So we're working on that. We're working on childcare. Again, childcare, paid family, my job would be to figure out how to pay for it. And we haven't found a way to raise $200,000 to $400,000. It's a lot of money. So we're looking at all of this right now. I have no idea where it's been in and out. And to add to that is the universal meal we passed it last year, but we only funded it for one year. So we didn't have a funding source, so that's another fantastic thing that we're coming since we had it for us. I assume that we, when we put money in to feed kids that we were gonna feed the kids. I know people said it was just for one year, but you don't feed kids for a year and then tell them to go hungry. I know there's a lot of concern. I know the cost to Montpelier that has significant number of children that can afford to buy lunch. And whether or not, yeah. I just can't believe in this day in swipe cards we can't find a way to let kids that can afford to pay for lunch and kids that can't get free lunch card. And it goes through through and nobody has a blue or green slips. It would take some startup money, but that's one we're going to need. But I'm assuming that until we find another way to deal with it, that cost is remaining in the end and it will impact schools because it will add to the tax rate. Thank you. The second part was referenced in this discussion, but sort of the status of discussions about affordable quality childcare, but also paired with the question of universal afterschool. I know that affordable childcare is rare, especially in very rural areas like this. It's just not here. And I don't know if those are separate issues. The universal afterschool, is that tied up with affordable childcare or is it separate? I tried to bring together, I was on the universal afterschool test so I learned a lot about that and the need and the benefits of it, so I didn't make the problem of it. I think often the childcare is talking about the infant to four-year-olds, but the afterschool can be able to get that license. So I think sometimes it is separate. The report that we got today from the RAND Corporation, the Legislature asked for deals with only that, which was here before. I think it's really connected and I think there's a connection to Dave's family leave or parental leave because that's a good way to provide care for infants that's the most expensive and the most difficult to find as a parent or a family member can stay home with that. And so that's part of that. The afterschool is significant. Roxbury here was connected to in a very convoluted way that has to do with the merger, connected to wash our neighbors, Northfield and Lamestown, with their 21st century grant. Montpellier-Roxbury doesn't qualify for the 21st century grant. That grant is over. So next year we have to redesign afterschool here in Roxbury, which would add considerable money to our poor people expense for Roxbury if we were to continue a program like we have now using 21st century funds and local funds. So it's a considerable challenge and we don't have, because we don't have a 21st century grant we don't have the staffing, we don't have an afterschool staff, so we have to create one for our school of 40 kids which is tricky. Not just have it go through the agency of education and through that program with all the federal rules, but to allow community afterschool programs or schools that aren't eligible for those federal funds to get the money from the state for the afterschool program. There is, well, there should be money from the cannabis sales tax that goes to afterschool. I mean, that was part of the deal and that's something that the governor still supports. So we don't know exactly how much that money is gonna be, definitely not the beginning, it's not gonna be very much and there's issues there, but I'm still gonna be advocating that that money stay for universal afterschool because it's a good prevention tool, but also it's... And it's key in these rural areas, like Rat said, there's no childcare here. It's not failure, but there's no way that you can walk in an area that's geographically as large as Roxbury and there are a lot of places like that that are just, it's two miles and it's 600 feet vertical elevation change. Both ways. Both ways, both ways. Christy can make money by pulling people out of the mud, right? Right. Senator Cummings, do you wanna get in? The deal is money goes to prevention, the large part of that is afterschool. No, we need afterschool programs. The, we spent this afternoon hearing from the Rand Corporation on the childcare and again, it comes and goes with what income level you subsidize up to what percentage of family income do you have families pay, there's a lot of levers, but once we subtract out the money that is presently in the system, we only have about a $259, $79 deficit. So that's gonna take, you know, they basically gave us a whole list of taxes we could raise. Raising taxes is never a palatable thing to do, but we're gonna be working through that. We know childcare is not economically necessary.  And I'm one of those that believes you have to keep saying things and eventually it takes hold. My son's family live and live in Canada. They have all of these things and they pay 52% of their income in taxes. That is an unpalatable number in the United States. No, we have lost universal care because the numbers come in so high that we just have a very different adequate taxation. And so we keep trying to gerry rig ways to pay for programs that we, you know, we are struggling to find a way to wait for them. We do not have a whole lot of rich people and a small number of them in actual dollars pay a huge amount of the actual state revenue. They have one of them move, heard a lot more than to have me move. So we're always trying to find that balance, but the bills are high. If we do everything, the Building Bright Futures child care bill is around $407 million. And there he is. Peter has joined us. Just to remind us what this is all about. That's right. Well, and I may need the details out. That's right. Well, and I may need to duck out here soon. It is bedtime time for this little guy.  Sleepy though. I know, right? He's ready to go. And I'm going to have to leave too. I actually have another commitment at 7.30. Well, we appreciate both of your time and put this super helpful and helpful and really appreciate you coming to speak with us. And this both informs us and we look forward to the session. And congratulations everyone on another channel. Thank you. Thank you. You in touch. I know all three of us. You happy to come and buy, come to any other meetings? I know you got a lot of work to do. So it's just been all the time I'm just coming to think about it. I really appreciate your work. Thanks for being on this school board. So I really appreciate the time that you put in for the community. In fact, AD comes out to contact any of us who work with us, a good team, three of us. We're one of us, we can reach out to you. Would you be able to stick around for a little bit? Sure. You did talk a lot about the funding of the SD level and the quality thing that we should be paying in order to contract two years. Yeah. There's the, that Amanda Garces who spoke earlier is on the Ethnic Studies Committee that's coming out with, I don't know what the right word is. Right. Right. So we created that group that Amanda was the chair of. And so they worked on these recommendations and then AOE's gonna put them into the new standards. That's my understanding. So it's kind of, it's been a multi-year process. There's been a lot of discussion about literacy. We heard a lot of parents like you heard today that were very upset about the way we're doing literacy. We heard from other people that had a different opinion. There's an interesting divergence on, that I was, I found surprising that there was a difference of opinion on how we should teach reading. I just figured we had figured that out by now. So that, it's been an interesting discussion and because of some disagreement on how the best way to, everybody agrees there was a problem. Like we have a low kind of test scores, if you wanna look at using that as a metric. But there wasn't a really clear path forward. When I was on the committee on what we can do about it and then let's try harder. We did put some money for, I think we put some, try to help some schools to have more paraeducators and literacy teachers. I think there was another name for them that I'm forgetting. Yeah. So we did put some effort into it but I think it's an ongoing discussion and I, I mean Libby knows more about it than I do, so. But in the current chair, Brian Campion is specifically interested in it and he wants to work on it more and hear from more people. So if the school board or the superintendents or parents in the district, like if you work with parents that want to come then they're open to having more of that discussion. And I'm sure the house, they did some of that, I don't know if they did the same amount so you can talk to Kate and see if the house education committee is gonna have the same level of discussions around literacy. Other questions? Yeah, thank you so much. Thanks for coming out. Yeah, and drive safe because it's getting slick out there. Yes. It's right at freezing, it's the worst time of the year. Yes, right, right. We're having like, I think blood seasons at a winner. End of gen. Yeah, and yeah, we've already got like the ruts and the frozen ruts and some of that stuff. Our facilities committee update, I know the facilities committee wants to give a good candidate to you, Kristen, but if you're not on point, you're free to pass the baton. I'm not happy to share but I can kick us off in letting you know that the last two months of facilities and energy committee meetings have largely focused on our net zero work and really kind of charting away forward on that. We spent some time looking at other district and supervisor union approaches to establishing net zero policies and resolutions like really around the country and seeing what other folks have done. And after kind of looking at a sampling, we decided to forge ahead and start writing a net zero resolution for our district. So that's currently in process. Our second draft of that should be coming out anytime and then we'll be revising that and hoping to arrive at a, another draft that we wanna share out with a group of vested community members, including our folks, our very good friends now from the Montpelier Energy Advisory Council. Roxbury also has an energy coordinator, the Montpelier High School Earth Group, and then some other local and state folks in the energy sector. Basically pulling all these folks together. This is our draft. This is what we have so far. We would love your feedback on it to arrive at something that feels solid. And we're looking at doing hopefully, kind of routing that around to reviewers by mid-February with the idea of having something final that we could bring to the board for consideration and possibly approval in March. So that's been the big focus of Anthony over the last two months. I did have the chance to go to the Montpelier High School Earth Group meeting yesterday to just circle back with them. They were, it was, I think, my first or second board meeting, they presented to the board. So it was a year and a half later to almost two years, but it was really great to be able to circle back to them. And some of the same students that actually gave the presentation were at that meeting. So to honor that work and reconnect with them and show them that, yes, we heard you and we are getting to work, kind of explaining our process. It took some time for our committee to really find its way. And so they are also willing to serve as reviewers of our draft resolution. So they are going to be in the fold for that. And then I think after we get done with that, we'll kind of get back to, you know, refocusing on what's not, certainly, the PCB issue is on the radar and just continuing to try to get information about that. I was looking today at the state website that has kind of the calendar of the testing. And it looks like now it's... Yeah, I actually wrote a letter to go out to the community on our testing schedule. Okay. We'll go on. It's going through Andrew right now. So it will probably go out by Friday, Monday at the latest. So I think it was UES and NS are up in the next quarter, essentially. Yeah, we actually asked the AWE to move our test dates up because we have so much construction happening this summer. And so we want to know before that starts so we can fold it into the construction if we need to, hold in any remediation. So we asked them to move it up in their lecture. Okay. How many schools have been tested? Total in the state? Yeah. So far? I think it's maybe a third or a quarter. They're behind. And what are they finding? I can only tell you by anecdote. So know that. Yes. I know that Cabot and Twinfield was referenced. Cabot has found two spots. One wasn't as bad as I thought it was. So it's all over the place a little bit. There's a school down south. I can't remember the exact, it's not Brattle Bear, it's Brattle Bear area, really down south has other. They found PCBs in that school that they're working through. But I don't believe they had to shut down any rooms or the rooms they found it in were not significant enough to influence schooling as much. So it doesn't sound like it, they have found any school as bad as Burlington? Not yet. And the thing to know about Burlington too is that they were using different actionable levels when Burlington, like that wasn't a state guided mission, if you will, right? So they're, and I don't understand it all with Burlington, but that it was a different level and all of that kind of thing. So some people have done the testing and have gotten reports back right away. And I've heard from other superintendents that they were supposed to get the reports back and they haven't and they're still waiting and so they're in a wait and see mode. So I think it's, I think the state is doing its best to try to abide by the timelines and the expectations and requirements. And they're finding that they don't have enough people, like actual people who are trained in this area to do the work. Not that they, I don't think it's a staffing issue. I think it's a, we literally don't have this specialty in our state. So I haven't heard terror yet, but also I know the biggest schools have not, yeah, have not been tested. And how long it takes to do the testing? I'm sorry, Annika. And how long it takes to do the testing on average? I mean, our, I think it's like days. It's not, you know, no, no, no, no. To get the testing back. Yeah, but the actual testing doesn't take that long. Just a couple, a few days or whatever. Edward Partier is in UES and MSMS because that's where the construction's gonna start sooner? I can tell you, because I just have that letter up. So we've got some projects on those schools, but also now those are the schools that at least from the date of construction seem to be probably. Again, this letter is gonna go out soon. And it's really a form letter that the agency has given us. UES is February 27th through March 7th. MSMS is February 27th through March 7th. RVS is. So it's like over our break, right? Yeah, that's during break. RVS and MHS are next January through March. So, yes, because those are the two buildings that the construction, that's where you asked me about. Do you understand it that one classroom could have a high test and the next classroom could not? Yes. And that one classroom would be sealed and the next classroom would be utilized? Is that possible? Yes. Really, it's that specific by spots. You really mean spots? Yes. Okay, I didn't know if it was, you see there's a bad spot in the whole school. And we've received, I don't understand it yet and because I'm kind of choosing that I will learn to understand it. Should I need to understand it? However, it's based on occupancy. It's based on child occupancy versus adult occupancy. And it's based on number of hours they're in the space. Like there's all kinds of formulas that they go by. And basically they'll say, this is your level. And then I have to look at, or we have to look at what kind of occupancy for how much time and then make a decision off of that. So you can make adjustments and still use spaces just differently? Potentially. Potentially, yeah. Yeah, as superintendents we've tried to argue that regardless of what the science tells us to do, if there's PCBs that are found at a higher actionable level in a classroom it's not gonna matter if it's a child or an adult. Right, like so I really understand why they spend a lot of time going through that just because but we'll see what happens. I have a question for the facilities committee. Once the resolution, once we have the resolution around at zero, what's the purpose of it? What are we gonna do with it? Yeah, so we've been wrangling with that also. So similarly actually the city of Montpelier first started with a resolution that then kind of pearled into a policy. So again, we're learning and we're studying and we're looking at what other districts are doing such to kind of learn from them but that's one thought is that from there we maybe develop a policy. Within the resolution currently there's language about developing an action plan asking our administration to develop an action plan based on kind of these goals that we're setting. So from there that might kind of work in concert with developing a policy but to be honest we're like definitely finding our way. I mean one thing that we're also talking about is the fact that we have this earmarked $50,000 from last spring. And so trying to be really mindful about optimizing those taxpayer dollars and what those are best used for. We had discussed, does it make sense to hire a consultant to help develop this resolution? We said no because let's take a crack at it and see where we land and see if it's something that we can do in-house versus allocating $50,000 towards it. So we feel pretty good about taking on this piece but we are trying to discern what's the best use of that funding to optimize this effort. So it's on our minds but we just haven't figured out the best use, yeah. As a board we set aside the $50,000 right? So I guess we didn't make a decision how to spend it. Would the committee make that decision how to spend it or how would that work? My sense is that maybe we would have a recommendation after the work that we've done and really kind of digging into things that we would have a recommendation to the board on how to best spend that once we've kind of walked that line. Jill, Seiji or Emma could certainly pipe in if you have anything to add on that or a different opinion but yeah, I think that's the way the process would work, yeah. Well, they can probably work here. I mean, I'm really excited the net zero work is moving forward. I know it's important to the board and it's important to the students and it's important to the planet. So, thank you. The next board action which is to approve our proposed budget and warning and given what we heard from our legislators, it sounds like we might want to amend the language a little bit or at least give the administration, the ability to amend the budget language in case something happens to me now at the end of the month, which given that the Scott administration seems to oppose it I'm less single than I was before I heard that. Is there anything, just before I do that, is there any good thing, any changes to the budget that you want to report between now what we saw on Thursday? Yep, Christina is here, she's here virtually so I'll let Christina chime in. You do have the tax rate calculation slide, just that part of our former budget presentation. So Christina, do you want to jump in with any piece here? Hi everyone, I'm sorry I couldn't be there personally and I'm also on child care today tonight. So the only change since the last time I met with you is that you've lost people to my up by 0.41. So that's what you're seeing here, everyone else has stayed the same. And it's 9.05% based on that spending for people so that's what you're going to stick in the ballot. Unless they change it for us, yeah. Yeah, at a 1.4% tax increase. So we're going to have to get that forward out. For anyone who might be reporting it out, that's 1.37% tax increase. And a decrease for Roxbury. And a decrease of... 9.5%. Yeah, almost 9.6% for Roxbury. So 1.37% increase for Montpelier, which I think is one of the lowest we've had. And a 9.59% decrease for the residents of Roxbury. Are you going to plan on writing an op-ed? We will write an op-ed and we will get that out as well too and I can... I was just going to say I think after we vote we could have a short discussion about what other... Things we can do, yeah. Outreach, tactics we could employ. Any other updates on the budget? No, that's pretty much it. Any questions? What is the... Is there an average tax increase around the state for school districts? Like where do we fall in that range? I think we would be low maybe, but... Do you mean that tax rate or do you mean the per pupil increase? I was thinking tax rate, but... Christina, have you heard from business managers the average around this year? Well, about a month ago we looked at the tax rates from last year and we were pretty average, so... What was our tax rate last year? Christina, do you remember our tax rate from last year? I can look at it as rockback, it's on this website. It wasn't much last year either. Well, actually it's in that second column. If you could share it for you. We have three years of data in that spreadsheet. Oh yeah, I didn't pay attention to that, sorry. Well, that's okay. There's a lot of information on yours. So, tax rate was $1.67 in one pillar and $1.44 in rockstery. It was a deep increase in one pillar last year. But overall, when, as you're asking my state, why is there a pretty average? Okay, yeah, I think it's also worth mentioning that this budget has some one-time expenses that are not gonna carry over to next year. Yes, it does. I said this budget has some one-time expenses that are not gonna carry over to next budget. So, you know, that perfect fuel increases is, much of that is not costs that are gonna transfer to, what is it, 23, is next year, 24, 24, oh god. It's like time traveling, writing these budgets. Any other questions or comments? Otherwise, I think I'm gonna entertain a motion to, let's do it in two steps. It's approve the budget and then approve the morning because I don't want to get something wrong. So, do I have a motion to approve the FY24 budget? So, discussion? Yep, all those in favor? Aye. Aye, any opposed? And sort of, we had aye on the phone. I think we heard aye from Seiji. Emma, do you want to vote? Did you vote? I was gonna say she's not there, he called her out. Sorry. Totally the vote on the budget. Great, congratulations all. We have passed a budget. Now, let's do the, let's do the warning and then we can have a couple minutes to talk about how we want to talk to the voters about the budget. Do I have a motion to approve the warning and I would suggest we approve the warning with a, with the ability for the administration to change the language and I forget which article it is. Or four, maybe? Article three. Article three. If there's a legislative change that allows for. That time. For a date for different numbers to be used. Warning of the 2023 annual meeting, ballot language and authorize our administration to amend article three in the event the current legislation to remove the restrictions on language does in fact pass before our ballots are printed. Yeah. Yeah. Do you have a second? Any discussion? So I have a question because the numbers like the two cent increase are reliant on information that is not solid yet. So how do we avoid essentially over promising something to the voters if we were to say, don't worry, this is only a two cent increase, but then the CLA comes in different or the dollar yield because the dollar yield isn't. We can't. So every year that's a chance, that's a problem. Right. But we haven't had language in the ballot that has been about the tax, about taxes. Do you know what I'm saying? But that would, how you would edit. I guess I would like to know what we mean by edit the language. I think we would say like get projected. Cause even the equalized people number, right? Or the percentage that could change too, because we are in negotiations, right? So we have made some assumptions. Oh, even what's written here in 9.05 higher. It's always, it's never a solid number. Never a solid number. Yeah. Okay. Can I ask a question? I heard that there may be some reservation about removing it from the administration. In that case, would they, would we add to it, saying that, okay, well, this is the language. But in addition to that, you know. I don't think we can, I think the law changes. Unless the law changes, I don't think we have the ability to, to. Yeah. I guess my question was like, did I hear that right? That they may say that, well, you got to keep this, but you can tack on some other things. I don't think, I don't think that's what the, I think the legislation that the governor is, will be given, assuming he's given it, is going to say basically that there's not a language, a specific language requirement for 23, 24, until they have a new language requirement. And if he just vetoes that bill in the existing law stays. So, and I, I think the chance of, of the administration going back and negotiating something with legislature passing by the 26 is, is as about as close to zero as you can get. Jill? As, as Senator Watson said, it's, it's part of a bill that also allows for remote leading. So if we actually did need to come back together in the worst case scenario, we could hold a remote special meeting and warn it so that those of us who were a quorum could then approve the new ballot language. Worst case scenario. Any other questions or comments? So if it is a law, are we thinking that we would want to remove the per equalized pupil percentage that percent higher, or would we want to, like it would be our preference, we could decide. If there's no, no language requirement, we could decide either to remove that, or to, as Aniket was saying, add a language, had a sentence that is, that is a projected tax increase or decrease, or, oh, I see Christine is raising her hand. Yeah, Christina, I mean, my, my preference would be to have more for each rather than less. So to keep, to keep that there, an add and a projected tax increase of 1.37% per month later and a decrease of 9.59 for Roxbury. Christina?  So that's to be determined. I haven't seen anything. I know that they're trying to change it, but I don't know if they're gonna give us other language or if we get to make it up. Gotcha. So the bill, as it's written right now, H-42, simply says it suspends the language that's required. So it says 16 BSA 56 subsection 11D, which requires a school board to use specified language for a school budget ballot. The ballot language requirement is suspended during the years 2023 and 2024. Yeah, that's how I am. So, Okay, we get to make it up. So we get to make it up. And our, I don't think we need to put this in motion, our suggestion to the administration, if that passes, is that they add a sentence about the tax implications and leave the number about per- That's what I meant. Yeah. Huh? We need to amend the motion because I thought the motion was giving them the authority. I think we can keep the emotion as it is and the board has kind of spoken on it and we can scold Libby badly if you follow it. The board has made their wishes clear. Yeah, the board has made its wishes clear. So, Yeah, we can draft the letter. Yeah. It's with a special meaning in here. That's a public scolding. Yeah. Okay. Public shaming. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great, thank you. So we are on to policy monitoring. So we have two policy monitoring reports to approve. One is DO-8, alcohol and drug free workplace and the other is D-11 alcohol, drug and alcohol testing, which I think just applies to our transportation. Pretty much. Which is pretty much done by our policy. STA, yeah. STA, yeah. Oh yes. Well, we know it and since we're there, let's just approve these and then we'll talk about plans. But thank you for. I'll suggest it because I forgot. Yes, thank you for reminding me. I think these are pretty easy monitoring reports. Do I have a motion to approve the monitoring reports? I move to approve the monitoring reports for policies D-8 and D-11. Do I have a second? Thanks, Lynn. Any discussion or questions about the reports? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, now we can talk about. So I will definitely do an outbed and I welcome help on that. I mean, we could do a, I could do it jointly with someone from Roxbury, Mia, you and I could do it as chair or vice chair. One thing we might wanna do is that we could do two outbeds, one for the bridge and one for the Times-Argus. I don't think either paper will take an outbed that's been published elsewhere. So it might be nice for, say, Kristen and me to do Times-Argus and maybe Rhett and Mia to do the bridge so it gets both places. Once it's out there, I am happy to circulate it on like frontport forum and Facebook. I also think everybody here, as long as we don't get a conversation going, can do a quick social media post on the budget. You know, we get into trouble when Rhett does a media post and then Kristen comments on it and then Jill comments on it, but if you just do one and then like let it sit, that's great. Can we use? We're doing the podcast with Jim and Kristen. Yeah, we're doing a podcast which is also something that we can circulate on social media. Those are kind of some immediate ways. Yeah, I'll open up the floor to other ideas, but that's kind of what we have in the quicker. And I think doing two outbeds, one for the bridge and one for the Times-Argus would be good and we can, how about, Kristen, why don't we do one and Rhett and Mia do another and- Sure. Perfect. I'm just gonna say that we're, because I think sometimes budgets are just, these kind of budgets are overwhelming for people. It's so much money and I think it's really good to try to be clear about our focus and direction and why things are the way they are. I wouldn't hesitate in that kind of to that point to also just email your own sort of circle of people. One of the things I'm remembering is when Jodi presented the Career Center budget, that our voters are going to see these two items on the ballot. It will look confusing that the Career Center is listed differently, but it's actually included in this number that we just approved and that feels like a piece of information that will be really valuable just as like human to human to be clarifying that. Not only the fact that this budget is an investment in our students and in our staff and in the education in the district, so I would really encourage folks to, even if it was just to take the time, Zargis, you know, op-ed that Jim and Kristen are gonna write, put the link in an email and say, hey everybody, I just wanna encourage you to vote yes on the budget. Here's some, you know, read this if you want, but please vote yes. We cannot ask people to vote yes. You can ask people to vote. We can ask them to vote and we can educate them on why it's a great budget that we cannot ask them to vote yes. Thank you. That's very good, Claire. Yes. Okay, make sure you vote. And I support the budget? You can say that. Okay. You can say that you support the budget, but you can't say please vote yes on the budget. Okay, good. You can say the board unanimously approved this budget. And here's why I support it as a board member. And here's what it does. Okay. You can't say please vote yes. Okay. You can say please vote. As every... That feels like a very important termination. I appreciate you saying that. And so don't say vote yes, but I think sending a personal email to your circle, your network and with information and saying please make sure to vote on the budget would be really helpful. And I think the same is true in a slightly different sense for Front Forge Forum or the Facebook group page that it needs to show up in more than once. And I think maybe kind of with increasing frequency leading up to town meeting day. So I just would encourage all of us to like don't hold back. Maybe each of us that for sure will at least each post twice or something. And there's no danger of getting into it like commenting on someone's thing in Front Forge Forum necessarily. But yes, make sure not to engage in conversation so that we don't break open meeting law. But I would say like... Yeah, I mean, just, yeah. Get it out there. Send it out. And you can always start a new link if you want to avoid it. I mean, one other thing, I mean, if folks have time for it, if there are a couple places where you could go and talk, I know we've done the senior center in the past. Usually we get the admin over at the senior center. Yeah. Which is a super fun thing for the admin to do. I can contact Tina to see if I can set that up. Yeah.  Oh yeah, they like it. Yeah. But if there's other places either in Roxbury or Montpelier that you think you could gather an audience, just leave me a book, feel free to reach out and ask me and ask your question. The community volunteer group called Roxbury Roots and we're hosting monthly potlucks. So that's on Sunday. So that's another venue for us to reach a bunch of people. Here, we've made some decisions that you are very proud of. And there's been some misunderstanding about how the budget is structured and what's included and what's not. Do we try to, would an op-ed be a good place or a bad place to get into that? It feels like a slippery slope of more misunderstanding. I don't know. I think a well-written op-ed can line out kind of how this plugs into the broader district values and goals and how we're making key and responsible investments around that. Roots asking specifically, oh, does it include the track? Conversation about the track, because this budget does not include the track. So to make that a clear statement and anything that's written to the community. I had that in mind too and I thought that's what you're getting at. I think we can articulate that. Yeah. It might also be good to make that distinction that track money is not part of the budget. Because there is some misunderstanding that this budget includes track. I think that's worth mentioning because I think there's some confusion around there. Offered to just be at capital grounds once or twice between now and then if people wanted to swing by and ask questions or whatever. Okay, thanks. I will court him. I'll give a heart to the joint of the role as well.  Even on a night like tonight? There's no time, no pens. Two hours, gotta hit the right window. So I think we've got a plan and as Mia said, recirculate. And as we get closer to town meeting day, I think everything we've got, pop it up to the top of the social media thing so people have it. Like two weeks before telling me what's an ideal. I mean, if you and I can get a draft done in like two weeks, I think even like maybe like mid-February, because a lot of people vote early. And also, I mean, the other thing too is. That's a month away. Yeah, it's a month away. Remember that town meeting day falls on the winter break. And this was actually the one time during my tenure in Montpelier where the budget failed. One of the reasons it failed was because a lot of people left for that break, a lot of kids, a lot of people with school-aged kids. And the budget always passes in Montpelier. I didn't have time to vote. I'm in wherever on the seven came back and was like, oh my God. So people oftentimes will vote before they leave. And then I think also urging people to vote and reminding people that they can vote early. So, and then we can always recirculate that stuff in a few days before the meeting. Great, anything else on that? And sounds like you've got a plan. And thanks everyone for- That was the bridge for rent and me? Yeah, the bridge. Okay. And then, I don't know if Richard Shearer still does- He's not doing it this year. He's running for mayor. Okay, that's what I thought. Yeah. It's unfortunate. It's unfortunate. Yes. Is there a Richard Shearer stand-in? I don't think so, no. I think that that is only Richard's show. All right, well, that's why I was suspecting. So I think we're on to, I think we're on a fourth reading of a 2021, 22, 23, and 24. And I don't know if Emma's still with us. I think we've incorporated- I'm still here, Jim, but I would refer you to sort of walk through and then I can type in if I need to. Okay. So I think we've addressed most of the changes and I need to get the things up. Most of the changes that were requested, are there any questions about the changes? And I'm not, at least that they're just linked. Okay. Yes, Lynn? On a 22, I just need to know what this means. I know it's a legal thing, but I don't actually know the implications of it. Under policy, the last sentence, it says nothing herein shall create a private right of action. What does that actually mean? So that language I think is, that language is in there, because there are state and federal rights of action for actions that are discriminatory. We're putting in things that may arguably be beyond what the district would be liable for under state and federal laws, so we are trying to make clear, and I think the risk is pretty low because if you don't have a statute to bring it over, you don't have a statute to bring it over, but that anything we're going kind of beyond what we'd more be liable for is not creating an actionable item. Yeah. Yes. In the second paragraph, the second sentence, I think you've put, moves the district forward twice in there by mistake, unless I'm reading it wrong. Where was I? The second paragraph, the second sentence. It is struck out in the line item. Okay, I didn't have a struck out. Yep. Yes. What you're pointing out has been corrected. Okay, great. Yeah. Just comments on A23. Okay. I have more just questions, which maybe the board may say, yeah, that looks fine in the policy language, and then I think a different conversation has to happen of timing and when and that kind of stuff. So it may be just a thing to point out that has worked for the board to do our conversation for the board, done at the bottom under implementation, where it says the board will assure that there are resources devoted to implementing the goals and will receive monitoring reports on a quarterly basis to ensure effective implementation of strategic plan. We should strike out. Did you strike this strategic plan? I think strategic plan. That was supposed to be goals. It's supposed to be goals. So some of my questions there, are they board made goals? Are they district made goals? Are they both? And then the other word that stuck out to me was quarterly, because we aren't in session for, if you think of a year, or are we thinking of a school year, right? So a full school year, that would be every three months quarterly, which makes sense. But if we're talking about a school year, there won't be much data to report out on for one quarter. Yep. Is that the correct language? And if you divide a school year into quarters, then it's almost... That's too much? Yeah, it's almost every third board meeting or Anakitz looking at me smiling, because he knows math at the top of my head is not my strength, but Anakitz I'm sure can do that math for me. Well, definitely strategic plan should be goals. And then whose goals? I mean, in terms of quarterly, I'm less concerned because one quarter might be, we're out of session of any report. Just as long as that's okay. I just don't want to be in non-compliance with the policy because of that, does that make sense? I'll just say as an individual board member, the way I read it was for the calendar year, not the school year. Yeah, that's how I read it too. And I think that that can still be the case, like it would still make sense to me if we had a meeting in, I don't know, the beginning of August or something for us to still be getting some kind of readout. You know, even if school's not in session, I think that's all I'm saying. I think we just need to be clarified as to what that is. Yeah, okay. What's the data you're looking for there, you know what I mean? And then I just want to make sure the board- Go to strategic plan there twice. Okay, so that paragraph needs cleaning up, okay. Then that last sentence on a yearly basis, the board will revisit the vision and strategic plan, evaluate and make adjustments according to input from the community and the superintendent. Like that's a big commitment for the board every year to re-look at a vision. And is that the commitment the board wants to make? Like it makes sense to revisit goals every year. Of course that makes sense. But the vision, would the board change that every year would be my question. Yeah. Again, just as a solo board member, I read that as revisit the vision to compare to how we're doing, like assess progress. But I think your point is well-made and we should probably just clarify that language. If that's what we mean. Yeah, and I was kind of taking it as that can be a, are we okay with our current vision? Do we need an update this year? Everyone's okay with it? Okay, done. Or like this is a year where we really think the vision is starting to drift away from where we want the district to go and we do need a process. So if it's that simple, then that's fine. But if it's doing an efficient process every year, I don't want the board to set themselves up for something that they can't commit to. I mean, I kind of took it, and I think we could clarify that and then clarify some other cleanup in that language we need to do. I mean, I take that as a just a quick check-in.  So we can kind of just keep a temperature check of whether we still feel the vision matches where we want the vision to be. And if it does enter, if it starts to drift, we get out ahead of that purlin' rather than, you know. It's not easy to write a vision, but once you have a vision, it's easy to say, oh, okay, we've got the vision statement done, right? And then, but I think being forced in a way to look at it once a year, you know what I mean? I think it just kind of keeps it in the face forward position and helps us think, are there adjustments here we want to make? Because if we just said we do it every five years, sometimes a lot happens in five years. Sometimes not a lot happens, but, you know. It's not reason history though. No, not a lot of it. Okay, so we'll clean up that paragraph before we will have a fifth reading. We can set a record with these. And then the only other thing that I had on A24. A24, okay. In the purple part. Purple part. I think we should just color code all our policy. The superintendent must ensure the board is adequately informed of the requirements duties. Just two and three, significant challenges and significant student staff organizational accomplishments. Those terms are slightly subjective. And so what I consider significant challenges may not be what the board considers significant challenges and vice versa. And so I think either that just deserves a lot of communication between myself or whoever's sitting in my seat and the board or some potentially more objective language. I don't know how, I have no recommendation for what that language could be. But it's just I wanted to point that out. Well, can you tell me which sentence you're talking about again? Yeah, number two and three, Emma in the purple part on A24. The part that I add. Oh, yeah, the part that's a cut and paste from our current policies. From the current policy. Yeah. Yeah, provide information on significant challenges. The plan for addressing them and results. Provide information on significant student staff and organizational accomplishments. That means not insignificant living. Just the word significant is subjective as well as challenges potentially. There's no metric. It's up to you.  And I would hope that other superintendents would do the same. I can't believe that you just take the adjective out. That might be sufficient. I don't know if that's, it's kind of your judgment. And we hope that you're, we expect that you will be honest, I guess. I don't know if that's- Yeah, I mean, I read significant as kind of giving you a bit of latitude to, because if we just say challenges, then like technically you need to tell us like everything. James, I know your job, Libby. It was just really hard to get out of bed this morning. Just want to report that. James, like I meet with you weekly, Libby. There's a lot of challenges. I can see what you mean. Yeah, I can see what you mean. Something just to think about. I think, I think with, with lots of communication we can, we can get through that. Yeah. I just wanted to point it out. Thanks for taking notes, Emma. Yeah, thank you.  Yeah, okay. COVID. Just about that, Libby brought up, you know, the on a yearly basis. Do we feel like in that, in that policy and we're sort of consistently, we're saying that we'll kind of consistently be checking back, you know, with the vision, but that we should articulate like every three years, we will take like a substantive look at, you know, the vision and strategic plan to like ensure it still feels current relevant and responsive to current conditions such that, you know, we are just, you know, with a critical eye and with a process, really kind of revisit. It's one thing, I guess like revisit, I guess they just mean like, are we saying enough in there that like, this is our kind of, these are our guiding principles. And then do we need to carve out something where we say every three years we are going to like reevaluate and actually have a process. I mean, I'm personally, I think as long as, and I think Lynn made a good point, as long as we keep it facing forward and look at it every year, that makes sense. I kind of feel like going through a major process on a timed basis, it could be in some cases a waste of resources because there are things that, you know, I mean, like the merger was a place where, you know, revisit made sense.  I mean, these are all things that could like precipitate that, whereas like, you know, going through a visioning process every three years is because of habit and policy. There might be a third year where it just, it makes absolutely no sense. And then, so it couldn't get a place where like, you know, we have to do it on the third year because we have to do it. And then the next year, you know, some legislative bill forces up to merge with, you know, another district and then all of a sudden we've got to do it again. And I guess that visioning process community, like I get that that is, it's a huge endeavor and certainly has a cost associated with it, but just more, I don't know, just the idea of just looking at it and reading it is one thing, obviously, but then to, you know, take a, just a critical eye to it is another. But as long as like, within here, it's like, we are circling back to this. This is consistently kind of guiding our actions and guiding our strategies. To me, I took it as the circling back has an action item of, hey, we need to have a visioning process because we're drifting away from it at some point. So in that check and, you know, yearly check, third year or fourth year or second year, we may decide, yeah, we need to have a visioning process. So that's, to me, that's how it came. I mean, I don't know if we want to add that as a line in there that one of the action item of that would be to know if we need another visioning process. But I don't think that's necessary as long as we all agree that that's check, check up is going to have that action item. Are we coming up on year three of this particular visioning process anyway? Wow. It's been a while. Point taken. How do people feel about that? Are they comfortable with this language maybe adjust a little or do you feel any work? Any other questions or comments on this? Sounds like we'll have one more to redeem and then worse. One more just for this one. Just for A23. And A24? I mean, I kind of feel since they replace A1, A1 through A03, we should just move them all along and do it all at once so that we don't have. Oh, yeah, green one. Because otherwise I think there's this weird, if we approve a few of them and not all of them, I think there's a question of... Conflicting policies. Yeah, what's a place of what's not? Okay. Okay, so we'll just bring them back for one more reading. Yeah, because we're not, I mean, we're not lost in the wilderness without these people. Okay. We're lost in the wilderness for absolute reasons but not this one. So, I think any other thing on these four or five policies? Motion to adjourn. Second? Second. Thanks everyone.