June 20, 2023

Regular Meeting Agenda: 6:00 pm Regular Meeting

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Fremont County School District Number One

Board of Trustees

863 Sweetwater Street

1. 6:00 General Business

A. Call to Order - 6:00 pm

B. Pledge of Allegiance

C. Approve Minutes - May 16

D. Additional Agenda Items

E. Adoption of the Agenda

F. Recognitions

G. Public Comment

2. 6:30 Programs-Reports-Presentations

A. Board Member Reports

B. BOCHES report - Mat Johnson

C. Superintendent's Report

3. *Consent Agenda

A. Approve Expenditures and Pre-Approve Utilities and Financial Report

B. Approval of Surplus/Disposable Property

C. Stipulated Expulsion Agreements

4. 7:00 Action Items

A. Personnel Actions

Motion by Taylor Jacobs, second by Kathy Hitt.

Final Resolution: Motion Carries

Yes: Aileen Brew, Karen Harms, Kathy Hitt, Taylor Jacobs, Scott Jensen, Jared Kail, Mike McConnell

B. Proposed 23-24 handbook changes (2nd Reading)

Motion by Scott Jensen, second by Kathy Hitt.

Final Resolution: Motion Carries

Yes: Aileen Brew, Karen Harms, Kathy Hitt, Taylor Jacobs, Scott Jensen, Jared Kail, Mike McConnell

C. Approve Meal Prices for 23-24

Motion by Taylor Jacobs, second by Kathy Hitt.

Final Resolution: Motion Carries

Yes: Aileen Brew, Karen Harms, Kathy Hitt, Taylor Jacobs, Scott Jensen, Jared Kail, Mike McConnell

D. Policy Discussion (2nd reading)

IJLA - motion to move policy discussion into discussion as first reading.

AB - move IJLA from 2nd to 1st, Karen Harms

move policy from discussion to action and back to discussion

Scott Jensen - both policies were in first reading last meeting

AB - unclear on the process - if we discuss these 2 and suggest edits or changes then how can that be accomplished. 

SJ - made brief commentary, A

B made a brief commentary - moved back to look at DB policy not due diligence, how do we determine and set changes if they are made tonight. Vote on the one we proceed with the then move forward with that and then approve.

Both of these policies were listed last month. 

KH - We had discussed having something similar to work session to discuss each of these

VOTE is for only to vote moving to discussion and 1st reading vote again - leave it here

Move it down - 3 - AB, KH, KH

Keep it - no 4 TJ SJ, KH MM

2 policies -

#1 - denoted in packet as draft 1

#2 - policy 2 noted as draft 2

SJ - move we take a vote to advance draft #1,

JK - Motion to consider both drafts at end of which we vote

TJ - move to approve reviewing both drafts to determine which goes forward, KHitt second.

VOTE: review both 7-0 passes

discussion for both draft 1 & 2:

SJ - draft 1 not substantial departure from managing complaints for materials, intent is to create a policy more friendly to stakeholder input, welcome input, build trust between stakeholders and our district, transparency this version requires when there is a complaint (any learning resource in schools) concern by anyone it is taken seriously - when those complaints come forward results would be public knowledge. Complaint resolution and published on the website. It would streamline the process, results of the complaint would be public knowledge, if a resources moved and/or stays - it would be public knowledge. 

SJ - I don't like mandatory - committee review. We already have a committee ready to review materials. Community defines our values via their elected school board members.

AB - attempted to blend the 2 policies but did not succeed in meeting Scott's approval. Starting from top - strike programs and events. 

Issues with community value statement which forms case for due process. Believe that is a huge assumption to believe everyone in the room or community share the same values. 

If start to remove books based on community alignment, then we can't represent everyone. Agreement for greater transparency - encourage parent and guardian input into learning systems. Excellent presentation from librarians who believed the addition that was most important was a review committee independent from the school board. 

A conversation between a stakeholder and designee could result in a removal. It is critical to understand most of the time people come in with a strong opinion but bigger questions should be review process and a review committee. Parents have the right to guide their student's reading and listening - and out staff are good at that. Every parent and guardian needs to understand one another's rights. We need to include a review committee.

SJ - Currently a parent can go to librarian and it can be removed. no one knows if or when that happens. It would be preferable that it is publicly known and published. Draft #1 gives trust to our professionals and they should be able to exclude it.

KHitt - back in January - indicated we were not comfortable with one individual making a determination. Discussed a committee already in place - CCC.

TJ - the end result if a parent is not comfortable or satisfied, the decision needs board approval. 3 board members on CCC important that could reduce time at board meetings.

KHitt - no reason CCC can't post maybe required by policy.

SJ - librarian empowered to chose the book, but then librarian doesn't have judgement skills to choose if it doesn't belong.

TJ - librarian first be able to do that, then a tiered step from there

SJ - librarians continually evaluate and constantly swap out books, if a parent comes and brings a book to their attention and it requires a committee - don't see how a parent raising that concern makes a cascade of events.

JK - committee is a roadblock that wastes time. It doesn't impact effectively.

DMeyer - CCC director, worried if we have the title - and take out CCC in this because that is where we pick our curriculum and instruction that is a major move in our decision making. Four parents, students, admin, a big process.

DB - concerns about curriculum and materials, the board ultimately is going to be held accountable to that decision. talking 2 different things - mentioning a book that is a different case then other books we may not agree with. Echo Aileen's concern about community values - once a book is in the library - concerned parent - 1st amendment provides the protection. Miller test talks about "would an average person looking at contemporary values" - does the board reflect that? can't just remove it. #1 this is a process, decide on the process first for concerns and then if something else like community value piece of obscenity pieces, but not much else. Board responsible for the selection. Once they are there, there isn't a lot of ground to pull.

Let's look at processes - committee or person, not a committee in current policy make sure we are aware of court findings when making some of these decisions. Based on a parent concern, not every day librarian duties

Karen Harms - community values concerned about in current board policies - school board ethics - #8 delegate authority - processes should happen prior to coming to the board. Board should be last resort.

MM - old policy is the current policy in use, old policy - role of CCC?

DB - there isn't a role of the CCC in a public complaint, basically it goes to the person - librarian or teacher and if they don't agree, goes to superintendent, solution could be appealed to the board.

MM - how many years have we had that policy 2007 - 2014

AB - Process - if we define our steps, have a level 1 - interaction between parents and teachers or library, level 2 - if wasn't resolved at that level then you could take it to the principal and follow chain of command, then level 3 - it could go to superintendent - have a formal complaint form to file, could go to committee or superintendent

MM - old policies in place for 17 years and now issue with book - beyond that policy came up for review.

KH - original policy being up for review. SJ asked for list of library books and that started all of this.

DB - current policy, if a person objects to material, they sign a complaint on a form and it does start with that but could be adjusted as needed.

DRAFT #2

TJ - concern once book is being brought up - uncomfortable leaving it on the shelf until decision is made.

JK - all three versions all three fail at right now an opt out policy - problem in order to opt out, you need to know what you should opt out from. No resource that says here are the books in our library that some independent resource rates. Or these are the books that are commonly reviewed as obscene. Get a note for an R-rated film. How could we rate books in our library so parents could easily opt in and opt out.

Break @ 7:44 pm.

Return 7:55 pm

public comment

IJLA

Shannon Arnold - evil

Deborah East - non-discrimination comments likes #2 wanting to understand view of other people

Rick Swain - parents choice is only to your own children

L. Spoonhunter - censorship -violation of first amendment rights concern about native books

Taylor Pinein - safety of children in the community - violence in our town

Mara Gans - buying books - library play a role, many different perspectives, need a group to focus specifically from student perspective Draft #2 better option

Phillip Strong - book banning develop policy taking pornography out of schools

James Winn - banning books from libraries

Maggie Bann - off the rail, very different time

Christina - FC least healthy county in the state, high rate of teen pregnancy, advocate for safer sexual practices

Allie Lombardo - smart phones allow kids access to pornography

Mei Ratz - interested in committee - difficult to be brave alone

Doug Thompson - early exposure to sexually explicit materials leads to destructive values and habits

Darla Newell - old policy, parents can prevent kids from checking out books, board should not tell my child what books she can read

Bill Lee - reflect on wide variety of beliefs. CCC review the controversy, AB more time driven

Jennifer Butler - amendments

Jackie Olson - how is it determined who is on the committee, problem with opt out policy

Jessica Blake - likes tiered system

Melissa Duncan - both groups similar - respect one another

Cady Shoutis - committee great idea - too much for one staff member to make such a decision

Tina Clifford - favors draft #1, law and obscenity

Patty McNiven - follow the law, books that fit the curriculum

Robert Win - obscene book in our library, policy in place isn't working

Karen Wetzel - agree draft 1

Carl Weller - CCC appointed - no issues reported

closed public comment

AB move to approve Draft #2, KH second

Discussion:

SJ - clarify role of this board, survey was appropriate by a board member, elected board responsible for everything that happens in our schools. The board is charged with coming up with set of resources to best represent all of those people. establish a framework that helps us get there. we aren't talking about book banning, chose best books for our needs

TJ - book banning - policy revised in 2014, review now that 2023 looks different, violating obscenity law,

Karen Harms - reiterate that we have a policy in place that we are to delegate authority, Draft 2 talks about coming to board if CCC denies,

VOTE:

in favor - 3

no - 4 motion fails

Motion for draft #1 SJ, second TJ

Discussion:

TJ - listen to comments on tightening up dates and times of the timeline

Vote:

#1

in favor - four

oppose - three

motion carries 4-3

Amendment to draft #1

SJ - #9 modify will to 'may'

MM second

Vote:

3 TJ, MM, SJ, Karen Harms

No - JK, AB,

Passes 4-3

timeline - uses promptly or as soon as possible to encourage a prompt response could put in a fixed timeline

On #6 at end, at a public meeting board will decide change to at next practicable school board meeting

JK - Amendment MOTION TJ second

#6 it would say - at the next practicable meeting the board would decide; change to this

VVote

Yes - 7-0 pass

Draft #2 three years #8

TJ - move to add items in circulation during review process 'may' request to reevaluate

motion to add request ot evaluation materials previously 2 calendar years..........TJ drop committee

Motion - TJ second 

Dave has this information for this amend

7-0

Motion - AB add multitude of shared beliefs TJ second

7-0

AB Motion - strike 'several stakeholders in our district' KHitt

7-0

library resources - AB motion add we are also attempting to meet the diversity interest and needs of our entire school community'

AB move to add 'exceed' to that section Karen Harms second, MM meet and exceed the district mission

6-1 SJ no

last sentence - inclusion or exclusion strike - align with community values and 'add' mission, vision, and values"

AB motion add 'mission, vision and values of the district" and strike "in alignment with community values" KH second

Vote:

4-3

NO SJ, MM, TJ

Procedures for stakeholder input

AB move to strike the second and or sentence 3

AB move to strike and/or end with district's mission. KHItt second

3-4

motion fails

Section 2 of procedural portion

clarification on "stakeholder must provide sufficient information"

Meeting was adjourned at this point in the agenda. Remaining discussion at next meeting.

5. 7:30 Discussion Items

A. Drug Testing Policy (1st reading)

B. Student Liaison Request

C. US Department of Transportation On-Site Investigation

6. 8:00 Administrative Details/Reminders/Future Plans

A. July 18, Board regular meeting & budget hearing @ 6:00 pm

B. August 15, Board regular meeting @ 6:00 pm

7. Adjournment