Welcome to Senate Education. Today, Thursday, March 31st, 219 in the afternoon. We're going to continue H2S 27, H727 per hour. We're going to then move into PCV testing, about 330. And then we are going to skip. We're going to go from about 330 until 4 with Jacqueline Kelleher. And then finish 4 to 4 to 15 or so with any wheeler signs. I guess we got a 430 break time or adjournment. So with that, Miss St. James, you left us, I believe on page 56. This is H727 and actually relating to the exploration information in the organization of union school districts. So I agree we left on page 56 line nine, which is section 721 joining an existing union school district is everyone there. This is there is a so what we've talked about thus far are independent school districts getting together and deciding to create a brand new school district. And then the work they need to do in the transition period to be up and running by their operational date. This session addresses changes in union district membership and other amendments to articles of agreement so 721 is joining an existing union school district so it's not too independent, two or more independent school districts getting together to merge and create a bigger one. It's the bigger one already existing in a school district wanting to join it. So it's not the creation of a brand new school district, it would be expanding. I'll go back. I mean, we were, I'm no, no, I'm 56 and 55. I'm just looking at that the state board of its own initiative can request of the board of supervisory they request but they can't just make change to the board membership. They can request it, but that doesn't mean it happens categorically right. No, so what this is, is if a soup. So, so the state so this is about a just so read it if supervisory and includes at least one district that is a unified school district and the state board, the state board on its own initiative or at the request of the board of supervisory union or the board of one of our districts and supervisory may at any time so the state board is the one making the adjustment to the supervisory board of representation. Well, they can request it. Oh, I see what you're saying. I'm just wanting to make sure that they can't just step in and say you're going to change your membership. Well, so they can. Yeah, that's what this language is so. So this concept. It's new it's not, it's not in current chapter 11. And it was a policy consideration so it's on that policy document and a we provided section seven nights on the bottom of page two seven nineteen supervisory board membership. So, in a different area of the law. So in the supervisor union chapter title 16. The law says that upon application by supervisory board. The supervisory board coming to the state board. The state board may waive any requirements. Chapter five or seven of the title of respect to the supervisory board structure for composition or board meetings for the staffing pattern of the supervisor union. And then it talks about what needs to be demonstrated in order to do that. So that already exists somewhere else that the state board may waive requirements related to board composition. So this is saying that the state. In the supervisory union section, it's only upon request by the supervisory union board of the state board waves any of those requirements. This is saying that the, the unifying in school district. Or the board of the supervisory union could request that waiver or the state board on its own initiative. I'm just trying to figure out what the value is. Not having the state board. Yeah, I mean was there, is there, is there a significant reason why that is so you know that they can request it but does that mean that they can make a change and request to me as a little softer and says you can request it but doesn't mean they're doing it that was my only that's my only question. I guess that they can adjust the supervisor union board representation acquired by 266 title 16. And that says that any time the school board of any district assigned by supervisor union and having more than three members shall elect from such board three members. So this is a new law, it's new to chapter 11. And it was proposed by air we. And it was considered by house education, and they decided they wanted to add this option into chapter 11. This is a policy consideration. The option is by the board that they could they don't need to be asked they could come in and say, yeah, we don't think correct your representation accurately reflect the number of students. And so we're changing. Yes. The composition, the representation required back. So yeah, the numbers. Yeah, so if you look at section 266 so again, I can't this is not this is new. So I'm in title 16. Yeah. I'm not on the draft. You're looking at the statute. Yeah. And so the statute that is referring to is under the supervisory union chapter and title 16. And that statute says, for the purpose of holding meetings and transacting the business of a supervisor union, the school board of any district assigned to the supervisor union, and having even three members shall elect from such board three members who shall represent and act in meetings of the supervisory union for which he's assigned. There's one more sentence but I'll go there but it's creating. So the school board that's a member of the supervisory has more than three members on that school board. So if the people that school board elect the, the school board that has more than three members elect from the board with the three members, people who are going to represent it on the supervisory board. So this is saying that representation required by section 266 so that this is really addressing school boards having more than three members. So this added language is giving the state or it can either adjust the representation required by the three board section. At the request of the board, or it could do it on its own state, the state board to do it on its own initiative. So this whole fairly an act of it so they could say that there was two boards that each has four members so they have to do the 266 they elect somebody. But for some reason, the way this union district was formed, right, we're talking about human districts. So the supervisory district was formed. No, the different representation on that board is no longer fair and accurate for some reason. So the board step in and say okay even though you elected member you need to elect two members. Yeah, something like that. So I believe so this is language that was proposed by a way and was adopted by House education, I believe the intent behind it was, there's already a provision in the supervisory union chapter that says supervisory union can wave requirements including more composition so it would be that three board members statute, but only at the request of the board itself. This language in chapter in chunk one of age 727 gives the state board the authority to do it to respond on its own. Now waiting for the request from the board. I don't know. Maybe we just flag it. If you're going to get an example of maybe, you know, what exactly where the problem is today. Yeah. We'll have a we. Okay. Thank you. I'm already emailing all you that should do your example. Okay, so we're looking at joining an existing new school district on page 56. I will be. I'll be kind of quick so I'm going to go. 57. So if the action is initiated by district outside the school district so town a with its own school board first is its own school district and it's interested in joining union school district. If the town outside of the school district is the one initiating it, then they request approval by the state board. And the state board has to make a determination that it's in the best interest of the state students, the district symbol and aligns with the policies that board section 701. And if they do so, then the decision on whether or not to, to join this union school district can go to the voters of the outside school district. And if the voters of the outside school district say yes, we want to join. Then the union school district itself has two years within which to hold a vote to allow the outside school district. And then a recourse if they don't hold the vote. There is nothing in this.  Correct. And that is. This is all current law with the exception of what the state board has to determine that's not in current law. So the language that's in in this draft, or is the past out of the house. It's meant to refer back to the policy statement and section 701 of this bill. Talk about the best interest of the state, the students, the district, and section 701 contains the goals of that 46. I just wanted to point out that the concept of joining an existing school district all and stay in current law, with the exception of what it is that the state or needs to determine. There was clarity and detail added on that. And it's the same thing. If the, if it's the union school district itself that's looking around and seeing if there are any school districts that they think it would be good to have included in their union school district. The union school district is going to figure out if they want to approach the state board. If they do they approach the state board the state board has to make that find that finding. If the state board does make that finding. It can go to the voters of the union school district and whether or not to allow this outside town to join. If the voters of the union school district say yes. If the voters on page 58 line three, the voters of the, and then the voters of the outside school district has two years to join or to hold a vote on whether or not they want to join. This is a policy, another policy consideration and current law. If the union school district inviting someone in the voters of the invited school district are required to hold a vote. There was a policy decision made and we and that's what's reflected in front of you to mirror the language, provide the opposite direction where it's the outside school district approaching the school district. There's no requirement for a vote to be held there it's just the two years. It's the same language here, if the voters of the school district approved the offer to join the union school district for the two years after the union district votes to invite them. Then the union school district will be in large. Any questions on that. But they don't have to hold. There's nothing in there telling them correct. And I guess I'm two years. And then page 58 subsection C line seven is certification of the election. So the secretary of education to be in large, and then there has to be filings of the secretary of state's office to reflect not just the results of the vote but also whether the school district is enlarged. And those certifications need to be filed with the clerks of the school districts in the town. And then page 59, any school district enlarge section has all the powers and responsibilities. So, basically the powers and responsibilities section of the real important part is, unless they agree otherwise, if the operational data is delayed to an agreement, then the joining school district shall share and the expenses of being in school district beginning on the date the secretary of state records certification of the secretary of education. So what point do they start having to be contributing member of the union school district. And the votes to the electorate under the section shall occur by Australian ballot that's not currently required in state law, but it was added because both the creation of a totally new union school district and the ratification of a vote to withdraw from or dissolving in school district needs to be by Australian is there's a requirement for us to end up so that was that section. Amendments to articles of agreement on page 59. This is all current law. Again, rewritten for clarity and detail. So, I think this, at least for me, this is a little dense. I know and if I'm saying that at this point. So, if so the union school district voters can also the union school district voters. The board can only amend the articles of agreement in certain situations. And that this section 722 starting on page 59 line 13 spells out the specific situations in which the voters can amend the articles of agreement, or the board itself can amend the articles of agreement. The voters can amend a specific condition or agreement in the district's articles of agreement if the condition or agreement was set with that for is a distinct subsection in the warning the end the original warning to take the vote on whether or not to form the union school district. So those that like original or original articles of agreement if something was set out as a specific condition or agreement and that then the voters can amend it. So the warning would have all the articles of agreement listed. If the specific article if the if. I don't think it would have all the articles of agreement but if that piece of the article of agreement was specifically in the warning and the voters can amend that. Remember one of the issues that 46 this came out is that the articles of agreement were kind of given to them but maybe in a new district they're creating the articles of agreement or they just taking articles of agreement that are already written by. I think we would be better to speak to whether there are like model articles of agreement out there but I'm wondering of what you are referring to is addressed on page 61 and that is those districts that were created by state board order. The voters weren't voting on articles of agreement there the state board created those districts and so there's the provision to address that on page 61 subsection. Districts created by state board order. This is obviously you lost not in current chapter 11 and it's meant to address. Those who can amend articles of agreement that were created by the state board because they were not voter approved in the language elsewhere talks about voter approved articles. Does that tie into this lovely map that's been in this room and I don't know what the green lines represent. Those are the force that those are what the state proposed. No, those are supervised I believe those are supervised. The union district. Border. Yeah, those are all the supervisory those are supervisory union. The green lines are supervisory union. I don't know if the key doesn't have that what are these belly ones. I think those ones weren't in play. Yeah, I can remember what about it when were those the follow orders. This was written as it says there. So here are the district's citizens holding the people lawsuit after the boards order and the screen words and noticed it's going to hold. So here are the districts. There's been there's been changes that have been published I think maybe those dotted towns were like in the process of withdrawing or challenging or that hadn't had a vote yet. looking at it. We spent a lot of time. But you can find here still, that's the test. Do you found it? Do you want me to go into any more, do you want to, does that answer your question about the, the articles of agreement that we're not voted on? On page 60, there's a part that's highlighted that remember you're saying that these are, these are policy questions? Yes. So subsection C line 10 page 60 reduction of great operated. So it's current law that voters cannot vote whether to reduce the grades that the unions will operate. And then to begin paying tuition instead, unless the state board agrees to it. But what's new is the finding that the state board has to make an order prove change. So thank you. That makes sense. About page 61. There's any like, oh, we've only made sixty one page 61 process that for these districts that were created by the board order, change the articles of incorporation, they have to vote of the voters. And I wonder, that seems to me to be a policy decision. Why couldn't the school or the district for change their own articles? They can. So if you read line 10 through 13 on 61 on page 61, yeah, the authority to amend the articles is that phrase is on page eight. And then the rest of it is the rest of it is the referral to the order from the state board. And if you jump to page 11, it's best either with the electorate or the board pursuant to the provisions of article 14, as that article was issued by the state board for some really sensually amended by the voters being school districts. So article 14 and the state created districts addresses where that authority desks. So you would have to refer back to article 14 in those state created districts. And there's the chance that that article 14 has been amended at some point since then. But I'm sorry, not article 14, but that the the the articles that are in general have been amended since then. So it it's the same. There's there's authority for the voters to amend certain things and the board to amend certain things. And that was addressed specifically in article 14 of those articles. But the board does not have authority to change all our all parts of the article. I don't know what article he says. So if there is a there is a possibility in the universal possibilities that article 14 says the board can change all of the articles of agreement that it wants. I don't know what article 14 says, but article 14 is where the power lies. Okay, does that I'd be interested to know if they can, it seems to me they should be allowed to change their articles of corporation at the board level, because it seems like it's all voters since it's by Australian ballot. Do they use do they talk about Australian ballot when a vote by a board? No, so no, so the are we still talking about subsection E? Well, no, I'm going down to S. I'm interested in E, like if the board can change it because then it says the process Yep. is by Australian ballot, which I would think a board wouldn't use Australian and makes it seem like Australian ballot has to be used. Right. Line 14 is the vote by the voters that have to be by Australian ballot. So the voters are the electorate. Yes. Yes. So just going back to page 60, then the voters can't vote to change the grades unless the board approves, allows for them to vote in the first place. Let's see. I mean, that that's the highlight says so. Yes. So in other words, the board, the voters can express an opinion and then have the board. It's interesting. Well, I think that the the plain language that the voters shall not vote. I think there's other ways they could express an opinion there to be a decision by 5% of the voters saying we want you to go to the state board and make this request, but so they make their case in front of the board and then the board says yeah, you may. Okay. Yes. First, is this language from AOE? Section E on 61. This was included in the draft, the original draft provided by AOE to start the committee bill. So just I thought this was current law. It's not. E is not current law. Okay. Because E is addressing the state created. Okay. I keep looking for the highlights as you sort of knew. No. So let's throw that up. The highlights represent changes that were made pursuant to this policy document. Okay. Okay. AOE drafted this rewrite in a working group over several years with Secretary of State's office, some private bar members who work with school district and some other stakeholders. And so the original draft went through house education and appears as it does today. And I'm trying to as we go mention this is all current law or this is new and added because AOE faced this issue and helping people through Act 46 mergers. So there is the concepts in here are overwhelmingly current law. There's detail added. There are new issues that have arisen due to Act 46 and the activity of all of the mergers and so that some of that clarity is new. But the highlight so there is language in here that is new to state law that is not highlighted. The policy decisions that were made by house education are all highlighted. I'm just wanting to know if the paragraph reads okay, I think but I just should we understand what's in Article 14 or have reference to the what's in Article 14 here because if we're supposed to be reading this as a school district, we don't know what Article 14 is just gonna email what Article 14 is just thinking she might so my guess is that the school districts who were now school districts due to state board actions are intimately familiar with what what Article 14 is. You'd like to be as well. Yeah. I mean, is there a way to encapsulate Article 14, which includes Bing Bing Bing? Absolutely. Yeah. 20 page later. Donna has not emailed anything about Article 14. It would be interesting to know if it seems to me it's a policy issue, but maybe I'm just confusing it with something else. This whole thing about whether that's with the electorate or the board just decide there 15. Why is it not just always the board? So the board so we haven't talked about that so page 60 is what where there is information on what the top of the page online one it's where the union school district board itself contains the articles of agreement and they can amend a specific conditional agreement and the district's articles only if the conditional agreement was not set forth of this as a subsection. So they can only do some. Correct. This on 60. But then over here it says also if pursuant to provisions of Article 14 it's best. So subsection A and B. So page 59 and 60. We're going backwards here. I hope this helps. So page 59, subsection A and then page 60 subsection B. They're making a reference back to the warning for the vote. So those that the A and B are only looking at articles of agreement that were created through a vote. Subsection B on page 61. There was no vote here. I agree. Yeah. Okay. Maybe I'm misunderstood. So the state board made an order required a merger to hear your articles of agreement. I want that board that was created the right to change those articles of agreement. And this says you may or may not have those articles about right depending on if it was vested in you or the electorate in Article 14. Correct. So I would like to know why are we doing it by Article 14 and not just saying the board is that important. We need no agenda for Article 14. Yeah. So I you can either Donna would like to testify.  I would be great. Discussing. That's all right with you. Oh, yeah. I mean, this is, I think, yeah. You're going to do a jeopardy rough talk. I was thinking. Doing a what? We're going to, don't you worry, we're going to just break through. We're going to actually, I, you'll laugh when I say this, but we're going to fly by after page 60. In fact, you may not finish. You mentioned the four jeopardy rounds. That's coming after all the time. Are we waiting for Donna? We are. I'm just waiting on this order to work to you, because we're so he's bringing it up as agriculture and eating our job. That's by the way. I kill for another one of these choppers. What do you know what happened to all of my friends? Really? Really? Ask me, shall we see? Well, that's the thing about it. Yeah, I have to. Me to see it. I think about getting actually a little fridge for the end of the session. I love the seltzers. I love the seltzers. Better cold. Better cold. Here we go. You want me to just back up? I'm done. I'm very serious. That's not bad for a little while. Some truth wasn't in my head. I could sweet it. You're buying in. You could sponsor a table of one thousand bucks. You're kidding. I think I saw that as one of the luck. Yeah, that was. Hi, John, are you there? I am. Hello. When I sent that message to Beth, I did not. Can you can you hear me? Yes. Can you hear us? I can hear you just barely, but can you hear me? Yes. OK. We're wondering about Article 14. Yes, and I don't have it right. I am. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, gosh, wait a second. I've got to do this differently. Wait. Can you wait one second, please? Sure. I think it was a full zoom indication. I'm here. I think the problem I was having is that I still had up the zoom. And so I was I was delayed. So can can you hear me? Yes. OK, I'm sorry. And when I sent that email to Beth, I didn't mean that you needed to pull me in right now, just that if it would be helpful, I'd be happy to talk with you in general about this. Yes, this would be a good time to talk to us if you know anything about Article 14. Right. So if I can back up just a little bit, the way that the existing statute is set up is that. Essentially, almost everything is decided if if it is going to be changed in the Articles of Agreement, there is the opportunity for almost everything to be only decided by the voters. And in the in the current statute, that that provision that if they are going to stop operating certain grades and begin tuitioning them that it needs to go to the state board first, that's also in the statutes. So when the when the state board was creating the the default Articles of Agreement and I can send you a copy of Article 14. But what it did was it listed them in in in groups. It listed a few things that the that the local board could change, which is similar to what's currently in statute. It listed in that almost everything could be changed by the voters only. And and then there were certain things that couldn't be changed or couldn't be changed for the first two years. So for example, they couldn't immediately vote that the districts that were going to be merged weren't the districts that were going to be merged because then that would have just totally undone the merger. So Article 14 tried to give the same deference to the voters that the statute currently gives to them so that only the voters can come together and make changes to their Articles of Agreement for almost everything. There are there are a few and I was going to look this email up before I spoke with oops, are you there? Yes. OK, I was going to look this up and I can try to find it quickly. If you'd like, or I can just send it to you afterwards. I did think of a few examples where it's likely that a board would be making changes. One example I can think of just really quickly is is that in those places that are that elect their representatives by proportional to town model when the new census comes out and the board is directed to change the the the number of voters potentially if the census changes the the the relative proportion among the towns that would not be something that would be appropriate to go before the voters because that isn't something that is a is a yes or a no. That is a that's a calculation that needs to be changed to comply with whatever the new census is. So that kind of a change to the Articles of Agreement would be something that the board would do something such as I'm I'm sorry, I'm trying to think. I can't I'm sorry, I'm not even thinking but of. Well, it could be which which certainly which grades are operated, even though they would have to go to the state board for approval, would be something that that the that the voters would vote on if they wanted to put in more protections. One of the issues you've been hearing about a lot has been whether or not the local board has the ability to close a school and have students sent to a different town. That's certainly something that the voters could vote on and change in their Articles of Agreement. So I don't I mean, I don't know if this is I mean, trying to give you a little bit of an overview and I can I can write it out if it would be helpful to see any of this in writing. Many are people feeling a little bit more comfortable now. Yeah, yeah, I think we're feeling much more comfortable. Yeah, OK. And the other the other thing do you mind if I go back to the to the changes on the SU board or because I can give you some examples about that if that would be helpful. Yeah, please. So as your Legislative Council was telling you, although board membership on a on a school district board has to be representationally proportionate, that that requirement does not apply to a supervisory union board and it does not apply because in order to have that proportional requirement apply, a board needs to perform municipal type duties, but also has to be an elected board. If it's an appointed board, then there is no requirement for that strict proportionality.  If you are a district that does not operate any schools, you send one member to sit on that SU board. So that that's fine if all of the districts are fairly similar in size. But but there are the you know, there is the provision that that Legislative Council was telling you about in 261 that says if the SU board comes to the to the state board, they can ask to have those numbers changed in some way and you might want to have that happen. If, for example, you have and this is this is a true example. If there is one very large unified union school district that has, you know, five or six towns in it and has quite a large number of students and, you know, and population, they would have three members on the board. If there's also a very tiny town that operates only elementary school and pays tuition for its high school students, they would have three members on the board. So you have a situation where you have a very tiny town that only operates a few grades and has very small number of students having half of the votes on an SU board. And the only way that they could come to that board could come to the state board and say, wait, this just really isn't fair. We really should have a few more on the SU board that represents this multi town, very large district rather than having equal numbers on this very small town and this very large multi town district. But if you can't get if you can't get more than a three to three vote to go to the state board to ask for that, then you can't go to the state board to ask for that. So this this this was something I think that might have been suggested by the school board's association, even though it was on the the the proposal that we had sent in about different policy considerations to consider was what about having some other way that it could come to the board? Either the board could look at it itself, the state board could look at it and self and and ask everybody to come before it and say, this just doesn't seem fair. What what do you guys think? Do you think that maybe this very large unified union school district should have a few more members on this SU board or are you all happy with it? Or or one of the districts could come to the state board and and raise it as well. And that was the situation that that had arisen. It's helpful, very helpful. Anything else while we have this so savage, John, if you mind this sort of hanging out there, I'm happy to I'm listening anyway. OK, great. OK, thank you. OK. Anything else right now? The same James, should we return to age? So the question at 914, this is the process of a vote by the voters. And so it gives. It refers to sections that we're about to look at coming up for warnings and ballots and. All for a lot that has been rewritten for clarity. I will say that a situation that Donna mentioned regarding adjusting the number of board members, especially if it's a proportional to town population, that's filled out specifically here on page 60, line 17, subsection D. Donna was mentioning that that's something that you don't want to lead to the voters. So it's spelled out specifically here that this is something that the board would be able to amend in the articles of agreement because of the voters leaving the voters the chance to create a unconstitutional representation on the board. And then G on page 62, subsection D, line 3, is new. It's not legally necessary, but it is added almost as an admonishment for mind everyone that they can't amend their articles of agreement in a manner that is otherwise contrary to law. It's not it's not legally necessary. It's it was a something added in the draft by AOE and remains in the bill as part of that. Transportation like a move of this type of stuff. Yeah, like to remove this. Yes, that's all right. She forgot the language. She doesn't like that. Not needed. It's not needed. But the policy decision is not needed. It's it's it's it goes without saying if you will that they can't break the law. They can't break the law is in response to a specific event that might have appeared to be breaking the law somewhere in the southern part of the state. That would be a question. Really, yeah. Could be. That would be a question for you. I'm striking it and if you wouldn't mind just checking in with AOE and others on that a little bit or they can even come in when they come in. I have a list of questions that we're going to ask them. But I think it looks like the committee is supportive of getting rid of unneeded language. He's 62. Subsection or section 723. Decision to vote by Australian ballot. This addresses if if the if the Articles of Agreement don't already say that you can vote by Australian ballot, then the voters in the district may vote to do so at any meeting. So warrants and category votes. We've taken by Australian ballot to help proceed in the manner in all towns within our member districts of the school district. See, all it's mostly all current law talks about co-mingling on page 63. And what happens if the vote is not co-mingled? Who who's doing that counting and who's doing that reporting? And if the votes are co-mingled, where are those where are those ballots put? So they can it's up to them to co-mingle or not. Please go ahead. They can decide that. Well, Mingo, yes. So if the voters determined that the ballots will not be coming out on the top of page 63, then the board of civil authority in each town shall count the ballots. But yes, the voters determined by changing the articles of the agreement or something like how would the voters. And I think they can just vote to take. Is it the vote to vote by Australian ballot? Is it the vote? Is it the vote to vote by Australian ballot? Or is it the vote that the district makes to determine how to count the ballots? Co-mingle. So let's go back up to line seven. Nothing like subdivision A or subsection A. So if the articles of agreement don't specifically provide for Australian ballot, then the voters of the union civil district may vote to take a vote by Australian ballot. And then if we keep going, this refers you to law that we're going to look at about an up and running school district, how are your votes taken? And there's a whole several section about Australian ballots and how that proceeds. And so this is referring you to that of the decision to proceed by Australian ballot is made. And then because a union elementary. So if a union elementary, a union high school district decides to proceed by Australian ballot, then the voters also have to determine whether the ballots are going to be co-mingles prior to counting the votes. So remember, a union school district doesn't have any number of districts. So they're going at the statue, but there's the secretary to do so and include what should be included. Donna, you're not muted. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I think it's clear. So they just decide they're voting ahead. As to whether or not they're the ballots are co-mingled, but if they don't determine that, it's not determined by Australia. That happens. And this is just about the votes decide whether to do a vote by Australian ballot. We're not talking about other votes like school budget. Correct. The vote on whether to proceed by Australian ballot has to be taken by paper ballot. And that's on page 63, 11. Right. But before that, if voting in a union elementary of a proceed by a stand, the voters also determine whether the ballot shall be co-mingled. Senator Lanz-Nieslowski. Oh, I'm on D on line 17. That's 62. So also determine whether the ballot shall be co-mingled prior to counting total votes cast by a trillion. But it's not clear whether or not how that decision is being made. That's all. I don't know if there's anywhere in here that shows how the decision is being made to co-mingle or not. So later on upstairs, the vote by Australian ballot sections in the kind of maintenance section you're running, how do you just normally run? That's all in there. This is also all current law. OK. Thank you. Senator. I have a general idea of what co-mingling is. I'm curious with the legal definition, as they have only locations and then they're going to put the ballots together for recap purposes. Yeah. OK. So it just has to do with recaps. No, no, no, no. So no, we do co-mingles in the seat, the Chittenden South CBU district. OK. So everybody goes into their own town and puts their ballots in and then the ballots are taken out to CBU and they're co-mingled. We're all together. So you don't count it by town. You count it by total district. They run through machines. They just the ballots at the end are then co-mingled and stored together. They're not run through a machine. They're put in a box. The box is carried out to the school. The ballots are then just counted without counting by school. So they can go in any order. But they do go through a machine. Yeah, they do go through the machine. When you take it, when we take it out to CBU. Right. Yeah, then it's done by machine. Well, there's also, at least in our district, it goes by machine just to count how many people a vote in. And then it goes into always the result. And it's not the result, that's right. Ours doesn't. But it's not counted. When the vote is taken, the votes are put into a box. It's not put into a machine when you vote in your town. So, I don't know, Ms. St. James, do you want to add anything to this? We could always return to it. Sure, as we go on, there are specific provisions that address co-mingling and actually include, I think, some helpful language, even for visual purposes about allowing. There's a policy decision that's made later on about allowing 24 hours for a vote for when ballots are co-mingled for the vote to be counted because I believe that there was a lot of feedback that there was a lot of late night driving trying to get the ballots to a central location, totally counted. I only raised this because of how in-depth we are going. And from what I understand of this topic, I almost feel like we shouldn't permit co-mingling in that we should keep the ballots with the machines that are run through in all these different towns because I expect these towns there, there's friction with the mergers to raise questions and challenges and you will retain more legitimacy if you keep the ballots that went through each of the machines separate and distinct from the other ones for recount purposes.  I just, as I understand this issue, I'm thinking co-mingling is a questionable tactic to take. I just want to bring, Donna, do you have anything to add to this? I could add the policy thoughts behind why the agency and others believe that they should be co-mingled before counting. All right, why don't we start with that? Well, it is a single district. It is not, a unified union school district is a single district. Even if it has multiple towns in it, any decision is made by adding together all of those votes and seeing what the totals are of yeas and nays. There isn't a breakdown of town A said yes or no and that makes a difference to the outcome. It is the entire count that matters. And we believe that it helps disparate towns to realize that they are a single unit and they have a single set of students for whom they're responsible. If they start to think about themselves as a single unit, rather than say, oh my gosh, that town always votes the budget down and has reason to not be happy with what one town or another town is doing. Either they always vote an increase or they always vote it down or other kinds of votes. So it helps that cohesive feeling of we are a single entity. And one of the examples I gave is that we live for many years in Montpelier and there are different, I'm not sure if they're called wards or what they're called but you get in line for what your own area of town is. But then they count all of our ballots together. They didn't count our, depending upon what side of town we lived on, they didn't announce the side of town that's over by the high school voted no on the budget, the side of town that's on the other side of town voted yes because we're a single district. And it's the same concept, it's just harder to get your head around because there are multiple towns in it. All right, Senator Chamkin and Senator Chamkin. Now, I just want to say as a South Burlington supported civil authority member that has overseen probably eight elections now and spent some long nights tallying results from four different polling locations, we have different machines and we run the ballots through the machines, we get tallies for each machine and that's for each of our districts. We do commingle for the recap purposes but for the day off, we still get the results and I can't see how we would do that differently especially with large districts, we're not going to pause and delay because they're voting on other things, they're voting on the school budget, the city budget, they're voting on city councilors, select board members. So, and they're also going to be different by town unless we're forcing separate ballots for the school district and the city and then we do that. We already do that. You must do that. We have separate ballots. Oh, we don't do that in South Burlington. So, you know, you're- Senator Lines, one second. Senator Terence. Okay, well in the same sort of vein that Senator Chin, yeah. So, a unified, let's say, pick a town, Shelburne for example, right? They're one of these. I'm going to go in and vote and the school questions are not going to be on the same ballot as the town meeting day, select board and all that. So it's two different ballots. So I'm going to run through my tabulator, my municipal questions, but then someone takes my school ballot, puts it in a separate box. Later that day it's transported to a central location where mine is mixed with the three or four other towns. Okay, that makes sense now. But earlier the debate didn't make sense because where I come from, obviously, where he comes from, school and municipal are on the same ballot and you put in the same tabulator. Well, that's why, I mean, you could still do that. I think this just may co-mingle, right? So you can still do that. That makes sense for us. Yeah, it does. Senator Chin, do you want to add? Yes, I'll just say I really don't think this deserves a ton more debate, but I will just say as I understand how fervent people are on this topic, I see merit to the counterpoint that Donna raised in keeping them separate so that you have those communities and their voice heard so that they can know that their district voted this way or not. And I think that lends even more legitimacy to these discussions so that they can get a better sense of how different communities within these districts feel about the budgets, about the school board directors. That's just me. That's good. It's interesting. Yeah, but the districts can decide. But current law, they can decide as well. Is this correct, correct? Or is this the request from the agency? This is current law. Is this current law? Okay. That's why you have some delay in some way. I still think you're going to be done at 3.30. Nope. All right, 10 more minutes. Let's see how far we get. We've finished with the first piece of this. We've finished with the organization formation piece. You'll see in the middle there, there's highlighted withdrawal sections. So that's the second chunk when we get to it. Not in here. So now we're moving on to, we're on page 63. Sub chapter three unified union school districts. So sub chapter three is all about, you've got a union school district that's formed, you've moved beyond its operational date. How does it run? What's the governance structure and guidance? There's sub chapter four, which is the exact same concepts, but for union elementary and union high school districts. So if we go through sub chapter three, okay, we're on page 63. So once we get through sub chapter three, there's really nothing, there's a little couple of statutes at the very end, but there's really nothing new in sub chapter four. It's just because a unified union school district has no member districts for the union elementary and high school district do have the member districts. Some of the references to like a town within a unified union school district versus a member district, there's some language difference, but the concepts are all the same. So starting with page 64, board terms. This is all board members, board current, kind of meaning forum voting, powers and duties. This is all current law and it is all stuff we've been over in the formation section. So the sub chapter two talked about initial board members. Now we're talking about regular board members. They're elected at a warrant meeting. They assume their office, they're sworn in. They serve the term that a term of three years or until a member's successor is elected, all current law, there's the quorum requirement. Majority of the members shall constitute a quorum. Page 65, again, weighted voting. Current law, the weighting voted is used to achieve constitutionality, constitutionally required portionality. The number of members of the school board holding a majority of the total number of weighted votes shall constitute a quorum. And a majority of the weighted votes cash shall be necessary and sufficient for board action. Following each annual meeting, the school district board elects someone from its board to be the board chair and board clerk. They have the same powers as a board chair and board clerk of town school district. The board clerk takes minutes. This is a little, this minutes section is a little bit of additional language of the concept is based on current law in that the clerk is required to keep a record of the proceedings. The details of this minutes section is new language, but I would argue the current concept. And on page 66, the board clerk may be paid upon order of the board again up front. And then again, remember, we're in unified union school districts here, just the board members, nomination, election and bond. This is all the same that we went over. You're gonna have, so if by Australian ballot, if it's proportional to town population, this section talks about who qualifies as a candidate, where does the petition go, who needs to sign the petition? And then the voters of the town within the union school district elect as many board members as are apportioned for that term of office based on the population of the town. This is, it's all the same as what we talked about. Same as modified at large, remember that's not current law because it's based on 1975 case law, but it's a concept that's been around since 1975. Same concept, who qualifies, where does the petition go? Same on page 69 for at-large representation. Let's see. Can you bring this right up to vacancy, which is? Yep. It's 70. And then let's see. On page 70, so there's a requirement that the, at the front of the district, the clerk of each town within the union school district is gonna help them out and give copies of the checklist for legal voters. Again, all the same. So that's all for Australian ballot. If the vote is occurring for to elect board members, if not by Australian ballot, then this section addresses how the vote will be used. If the district elects members under the proportional to town population model on bottom of page 70, line 19, then the nomination of candidates occurs at a town who's immediate warrant for the purpose. The voter shall only nominate a person who's present at the meeting. And then the person who accepts or rejects the nomination. Let's see. The clerk shall ensure the candidate is a voter of a specific town, if it's someone under the proportional to town or modified at large and those seats are tied to a town. Bond, before a newly elected board member enters upon the duties of the office, the district shall ensure the district's blanket bond covers the new board member. And within 10 days after the election of a board member, the district clerk shall transmit the name of the newly elected members to the secretary of state. All in favor? All right, let's pause there. Because I know Mr. Finn has put in he has to drive to and so it's stopped a few minutes. Now we put 330, is that all right with you? Sure, I'm just looking to see how many more days we have until we get there. Can I ask a question? All right, yeah, go ahead. Oh no, not to finish. No, I know, center line is a question. Okay, so I'm a skip way ahead. I'm just, I'm gonna ask a question. Yeah, I just wanna be respectful of our business as well. Exactly. So on page 83, that allows the district clerk to appoint unified school district board members who are not on the ballot to aid in counting a ballot. So this is similar to what we do when we have any election in use. But is there any oath or swearing in that is, that probably should be prescribed? There's nothing complicated here. Okay. That was a policy concern. Okay. And it's with the bond. As long as the candidate is in keeping with all of the requirements, they're automatically on there, or would there be conditions where they might not be? So this requires the district to ensure that the district's blank at bond powers to meet board members, not a personal bond. Oh, yeah, does that make sense? Yeah, I just wondered if there were any reasons that they would- We're stopping on right now, Stephanie. Thank you. As long as the person was- Japan, if you don't mind joining us, we're gonna do a switch. Yeah, I think there's nothing contemplated in this. And I don't think there's that level of detail- I suspect you're gonna be able to be pretty brief with us. Yeah, and that's what I thought. Thank you, Ms. St. James. Yes.


And in some business news, the House of Representatives Committee on Finance has some on the Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer, Nigerian bulk electricity trading company, NBET, Nemeke Welukah for showing its invitation to him for the defense of the budget proposed by the organization in the 2023 appropriation bill. Chairman of the committee, James Falleke, showed the summons in Abuja in Monday at the budget defense session organized for ministries, departments and agencies supervised by the committee. Deputy Chairman of the committee, Musa Ablahi, while expressing his pleasure with Welukah's non-appearance, recalled how the National Assembly convened on October 7 of Friday when the lawmakers did not hold sessions purposely to receive the 2023 appropriation bill from President Muhammad Bwari. Ablahi noted how the committee recorded its members from their two-month annual leave to consider the 2025 medium-term expenditure framework and physical strategy paper.


Hi everyone, Joe for JaspysCaseBreaks.com coming at you with 2020 Panini Donaris Football Fat Pack Random Team Break Number 19. Give it away, nine of those NT football spots. And we're gonna do that in a different randomizer at the very end of the video right there. It'll be for break number one. Break number two and another filler up on the site right now, JaspysCaseBreaks.com. Big thanks to these folks for getting into it. Appreciate you getting in and good luck. And there are the teams right here. As always, we're gonna do the break itself first before we do the randomizer for the spots. Four and a three, seven times for each list and seven in final time. After seven, we've got Alberto down to Chad. Four and a three, seven times for the teams and seven in final time. After seven, we've got the Falcons down to the Cowboys. All right, so there's the first half of the list right here. Dario with the Bengals, Dolphins, Taylor, among others, Chargers, Phillip. So no trade windows in these little breaks. So let's just go with the break just so we can see who's gonna win those nine spots. That NT break's gonna be in a separate video. So if you're watching this and you're wondering that's gonna be at the end of this video, it's not, it's gonna be a different video. Kid reporter card getting in the way. And we've got Zach Ertz, Lamar Jackson, Darius Leonard and a rookie. It's James Morgan. Hoping it was, I was actually hoping it was someone like this. It was White Hot Rookies, Tua Tango Viola, Viola. Tango Viola. That'll be for Miami, that'll be for Taylor. Taylor with Tua. So nice Tua right there. Now we're gonna see which of these folks are gonna be in that next break. So let's flip back to this screen right here. So from Lucas down to Greg and everybody in between, it'll be the top nine after three. Good luck. One, two and three. That's the top nine, right? So from 10 down to 32, sad times for those folks right there. Sorry about that. I appreciate you trying though. We'll get them next time. The top nine gets congratulations. They're the lucky ones this time. Raymond, Fouad, Dario, Barry, Kyle, Greg, Kyle again, William and Michael. So congrats to the nine right there. We'll see you for that one box NT break coming up in a separate video right after this. Jasper'scasebreaks.com.


Student reaction to their first objective test was my first impetus to perhaps rethink the entire evaluation program that I designed for a large lecture class. I had lines of students after the first exam swearing that they had studied so hard and they knew so much more than was asked on that test. Obviously I had just asked the wrong questions. In the first syllabus that I designed for 201 I had been told by other teachers of large lecture classes that the only way to survive that was to give Scantron exams and compute the grades rather straightforwardly from those Scantron exams because there are simply too many students to get to know them personally, to give an essay exam would mean that you would spend the entire quarter grading those essay exams and so I accepted that experienced wisdom and did it that way. A concurrent experience with teaching my first fall quarter GUR was to be teaching a 300 level major course in which I expected the students would have the necessary writing skills to write what I considered to be a short research paper and I found out as the quarter progressed that this assignment was causing them great distress because they had never written a paper of that length before. They had not had explicit instruction on how to write such a paper and when I tried to follow that through find out why not? How can you be a junior in college and not have those skills? They explained they had been in GURs for the last two years, large lecture classes for the most part but not very often in classes that were of the size that would require much writing again because of the logistics of evaluation of that much writing and so they were hitting it for the first time and the assignment that I had given them was exceeding their skill level and I wanted to start instilling skills much earlier so that they would be confident at juniors and be working with content rather than skills at that level. Then the third motivation was attending the teaching and learning academy. The TLA discussions involve instructors, faculty, students, staff, administrators and even on occasion interested community partners in education. Listening to student frustration both with evaluation and with their own perceived lack of skills and how to acquire them and feeling that they were a number rather than a developing scholar that nobody knew their name were some of the additional reasons that I thought it was time to introduce a more personalized way of being evaluated and learning. The fourth was I found that their support on this campus for doing that. The writing center gave a number of workshops, brought in speakers, sessions on best practices so I learned from instructors who were already introducing writing into their classes and became convinced that it wasn't an impossible thing to do.