School Board Meeting 2152017 Part 3

to the dais and we can continue our meeting.

We will now move to the action portion of the agenda.

Madam President I have a point of personal privilege.

Yes.

I would like to move intro item number one adopting board resolution 2016 slash 17 dash 13 fully funding basic education from intro to intro action number eight.

Do I hear a second to amend the agenda thusly?

I'll second it.

All in favor of amending the agenda?

We are amending it to move it.

All right General Counsel Noel Treat will advise us here.

Thank you Noel.

Good evening everyone Noel Treat General Counsel so you've got a motion and a second and so what you might want to do now is give an opportunity to speak to the motion and then have any quick discussion you want to have before the vote.

All right then I'll allow Director Harris to begin by explaining her rationale.

The rationale is that we are moving pretty quickly in Olympia and I don't know that we need to wait two weeks to yet again commit for fully funding basic education.

Director Peters and then Dr. Nyland.

I was just wondering if someone could speak, are there downsides to this?

You know I'm recognizing the comments that Director Geary had made about the sensitivity.

I just want to make sure that we go into it with eyes open and with the right discussions and the right level of tone and sensitivity.

So they can probably do this better than I can.

I think I wrote the initial resolution during our last board meeting and we were talking about how to continue to keep pressure on Olympia.

As we brought it to the executive committee Aaron and Steven were a little worried about that.

And so right now it's teed up for intro today with action two weeks from now.

I think Director Geary has some information from Monday with regard to our delegation and some of the things that are going on behind the scenes.

So and I haven't been there so I haven't been privy to these conversations and I'm always hopeful but skeptical about whether we can get a deal by the end of the month.

But if we can get a deal by the end of the month that would help us avoid the levy cliff and allow us to minimize the number of staffing whatever we are calling them displacements I think that would be good.

So my preference I don't know that it's the end of the world either way but my preference would be to continue it as a intro item and then give us an opportunity to find out from our delegation how those behind-the-scenes conversations are going before finalizing.

So Stephen's catching up.

The motion on the floor is to move the resolution from intro today with action on March 1 to intro in action today.

Good evening Director Stephen Nielsen, Deputy Superintendent.

The idea of ensuring that the legislature appreciates our fiscal position is very worthwhile at this time so I think it's a good resolution and it's worthy of pursuit.

The question of timing does matter and we don't know for sure what the right answer is so I will give you perspective that I think is instructed by the best information that we have.

As I noted in my comments earlier, once the legislature approaches some plans, time to work on those things is essential for them.

And there is a balance required for external force and internal work.

So the probably more conservative approach would be to assume that They have heard the message based on our resolution and the communication as we've noticed it in our public record already and give them some time to work on it.

If they are able to agree and come to a levy cliff solution by the end of the month then we could amend the resolution thanking them for that and continue the part on funding.

The other side of the coin is that if there is a prod that would help that process there may be value to that.

And the way I would weigh it has to do with our particular position in the state.

As Director Geary mentioned earlier we are a part of a much larger scene and to that end our position has been clear along with other districts in this part of the region which are leaning more towards one party than the other and our delegation of that party has been already very helpful.

So the ultimate question is how would this resolution be perceived during those negotiations and would it be helpful or not.

having already delivered the preliminary message.

So I would suggest that that would be a topic of your conversation and again I think we could argue it either way and this is one of those things where you need to make a decision is how hard do we want to push on all of this and is there value added.

I did have a chance to have a conversation with some staff members yesterday about this topic and the feeling that I received and they don't know any more than we do.

They hear things and they know things but their feeling was it might be wise to let it go and see how it goes before we would do an intro and action at this point.

But again there is an advantage on the other side.

and I realize that is not a black and white answer, everything in Olympia is gray so thank you for allowing me to speculate.

Director Geary.

Now it's fine.

Okay my concern with this is just the language about being a manufactured crisis because that is just a phrase that I think having heard and seen what I saw while I was there could easily be turned against us in terms of it doesn't feel manufactured that the disparity between funding between our district and other districts doesn't feel manufactured to the other districts out there.

And so I think while it would be fine for us to go ahead with a resolution that states every other part of it, I don't want to give anybody sound bites that can be used against the Puget Sound and perceived wealthier districts in these conversations.

I was given hope by senators that they are close and so if we could take either maybe change that language and or take the time to reach out to some of them with this to find out from their perspective if this helps or hinders them in their representation of us there.

would be my suggestion.

I just reading through it I felt trying to take that voice that I had heard that's the stinging point for me and I just feel very sensitive that we don't want to do anything that hinders our delegation's ability to get this done in a timely manner.

That's my only input so do with that as you will.

Director Blanford.

So I'm looking for guidance from the chair or from our parliamentarian as to are we now discussing the substance of the resolution or are we still discussing the amendment which is to move the resolution to action at this meeting?

Or some combination of the two?

Well the primary motion before you right now of course is the motion to amend the agenda but as the substance relates to whether to do an intro and action tonight then it's relevant as part of the discussion.

So it is more the blend of the two but the motion you need to get to vote on initially now is just the motion to amend the agenda so that's the most germane part to comment on at this stage.

Peters Are there any other comments or questions about Director Burke?

This is blending the two topics.

Do we have feedback from our legislative delegate delegation around the language or the timing as far as what's most advantageous?

Not specifically, yet we do have very clear feedback that work is underway to try to resolve this by the end of this month and therefore that brings back to which way do we want to go.

At the risk of the obvious it's worth noting that this is a very difficult topic for the legislature and there are different plans on how to achieve the solution.

And the levy cliff is obviously being used as a tool by some parties in order to achieve other parts of their plan therefore creating some difficulty.

And from my perspective I will repeat what I said earlier because of the delicacy of that and it's something that has to take place from a statewide perspective that we might want to give them a little bit of time.

and be able to communicate with them in a way that finds out more information, changing language, whatever.

And again we've made notice of our concern so we've already moved down that path and that's critical for us.

Director Blanford.

This question is for Director Harris who is the author of the amendment to move this forward.

I'm just wondering you gave a very quick statement around your rationale for doing this.

I'm wondering if you can expand a little bit on that so we have a better sense of why there is urgency to move this forward.

I'll do you one better I'll withdraw the motion and I would suggest potentially that if the manufactured crisis language according to our representative in Olympia is causing distress then it might be worth our while to amend said motion.

I take great value in hearing from our folks on the ground.

So I hereby withdraw my motion.

I was supposed to do?

As a person I second and I concur I agree.

Yeah just a quick procedural thing because the motion was made and seconded it's now before the whole body so one quick procedural way under Robert's rules to address that is when the maker of the motion says they want to withdraw it the chair can simply ask the body if there is any opposition to withdrawing it and if there isn't any then it can be considered withdrawn.

Peters I get any objections to withdrawing this motion?

Not an objection but to the last point that was made about testing this with people on the ground I support that notion it seems to me that that should be the starting point for this that we want it to have as much resonance on the ground in the legislature as possible so it seems to me that before it gets too widely distributed that they would know and bless us going forward before we do before we take action on it.

and I have no objection to the withdrawal of the motion.

Peters No objection.

Peters No objection here.

All right the motion has been withdrawn.

So we now resume our regularly scheduled agenda and we come to our first action item.

Harris I move that the school board approve resolution 2016 slash 1712 affirming the provision of the safe welcoming and inclusive schools for all students without regard to race religion national origin or immigration status.

Immediate action is in the best interests of the district and our children.

Second the motion.

This came to the executive committee on February 2 where it was advanced for consideration pending some final revisions of the resolution.

I am now going to read the resolution into the record and then we can discuss it.

Resolution affirming the provision of safe, welcoming and inclusive schools for all students without regard to race, religion, national origin or immigration status.

A resolution of the board of directors of Seattle school district number one, King County Seattle, Washington affirming the provision of safe, welcoming and inclusive schools for all students without regard to race, religion, national origin or immigration status.

Whereas the school board recognizes that our nation's and district's diversity is our greatest strength and we celebrate 147 countries of birth and 143 languages and dialects spoken among our 53,000 students and whereas the history of our community includes government actions that were enacted due to discriminatory beliefs that cause great harm to the citizens of this nation and violated basic principles of democracy and whereas This history includes shameful actions related to the US settlement of our region that harmed our native tribes and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and whereas reports of student harassment and of higher levels of student anxiety have increased due to the current national political climate And whereas, as the history of our state, country and world teaches us that we cannot allow those in authority to use fear to beget hate and deny the rights and dignities of our citizens, this board fervently believes we must not succumb to or enable such inclinations And whereas the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Plyler v. Doe ensures all children are legally entitled to equal access to a free public education regardless of immigration status.

And whereas it is the policy of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE that absent a lawful exception enforcement actions will not occur at nor are focused on schools which are considered sensitive locations.

And whereas the presence of ICE or other immigration enforcement officials in schools would cause extreme disruption to the learning and teaching environment for students, staff and families.

And whereas it is the policy of and strongly held belief of Seattle Public Schools that all schools must be safe and free from the targeting, discrimination, harassment or bullying of students based on race, nation of origin, religion, immigration status or any other factor.

Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Directors of Seattle Public Schools as follows.

One in accordance with district policy and procedure as well as Superintendent Nyland's February 2017 letter to families Seattle school district staff will not ask for nor record student or family immigration status.

And two, the district calls on ICE and related federal agencies to continue the policy of not conducting enforcement actions in sensitive locations such as schools.

And three, if an ICE agent or similar official requests information about a student or access to a school building or district property, staff will not have authority to approve the request and will refer the agent official to the office of the general counsel for a formal review of their credentials and written legal authority for such requests.

And four, any such agent official shall not be allowed access to any records, school or other district facility except to the extent specifically required by law and only upon the written consent from the general counsel or superintendent.

And five, staff will be trained and resources made available to support students and families with concerns regarding immigration status.

And six, The district encourages families to have up to date emergency contact information on file with the district in the event a student's primary caregiver is detained due to immigration status and seven under this resolution Seattle Public Schools reaffirms our commitment to a safe welcoming and inclusive environment for every student without regard to their race religion national origin or immigration status.

I'll just say that by way of history this resolution was the work of many people.

A number of us on the board felt very strongly that we needed to speak up and speak out in support of our many students and that we would not allow the actions of a federal government that seems to disregard some of our basic principles of humanity decency and democracy to get in the way of our duty to our students and their families here in Seattle Public Schools.

I want to thank all the members of staff who helped research and write this and the various directors who supported doing this.

The executive committee Director Harris and Director Pinkham and then Director Blanford also expressed very strong interest in doing this and I'm very pleased with the final results and I think it is very apt that we initiate this action on what is soon to be the 75th anniversary of another executive order.

number 9066 that was signed in 1942 by President Franklin Roosevelt that removed any citizens deemed that were deemed necessary desirable to move and that resulted in the internment of Japanese-Americans and internment caps for over two and a half years.

That was another ignominious moment in our history and we cannot repeat that.

Does anybody have any other questions or comments about this item?

Director Geary.

I want to thank my colleagues for taking the lead on this so quickly going through the documents I just want to shout out that we are joining St. Paul and Pittsburgh in this movement and so I hope that we can continue to inspire many other school districts to take the same course so thank you all very much for your hard work.

Director Harris.

I want to shout out to our partners in the city of Seattle as well.

It's good to be from the city of Seattle and to be with people who stand up and get counted.

Both the mayor the city attorney and the Seattle City Council are standing with us on this resolution and we are indeed in bizarre and frightening times and it matters to stand up and get counted.

I'd also like a special shout out to attorney Ronald Boy.

You gave us really substantial and stellar work and I really appreciate it.

Peters

I join my colleagues in their support for this amendment.

I do have a question however and that concerns what I perceive is the lack of focus on bullying that is occurring student to student in the document.

And the reason I raise that issue is because when I was at the national school board association conference earlier this month in Washington DC last month and then the first part of this month in Washington DC.

subject was the topic of lots of conversations both in presentations that were given to school board directors as well as between director to director across districts and across states.

And several school board directors shared a similar sentiment that I've heard from district staff where there are issues that are starting to pop up between students that are enrolled in the same school district in many cases in the same school.

And so the resolution that I wrote as a result of doing a little bit of research around some of the other districts and the other resolutions that have been proposed had a strong focus on that bullying aspect.

because that's in many cases what students are facing as opposed to action from ice.

And so I don't see as much of that language in this final document and I'm wondering if it's not there why it's not there if there was a rationale for not having it be a part of the final document that we are considering so that I can go back to constituencies and to staff and share what I've learned on that issue.

I can't give it's a good question and I can't give you a detailed response.

I agree with the concept and I think the title reflects that and there was an attempt to get that information into the resolution.

My earlier memos the first one dealt specifically with that issue as I'm forgetting what all of the incidents were and the timing and all of that kind of stuff but that was some of the early responses that we heard.

was students feeling like they had some license to do the bullying either verbal or more rarely physical.

And then subsequent to that was the concern that we heard from immigrant families with regard to the other issue.

So it may be tilted a little bit to that one end but I agree that there are things that we've done internally that are called for in the resolution already with regard to ice and getting permission and we previously I have sent many communications to students parents and staff about the bullying issue and wanting to create a warm caring safe respectable environment for all of our students.

So I don't know how hard or easy it is to add anything to the resolution at this point in time but I certainly agree with the concept.

I'll just add to that that we did circulate a draft of this resolution to the whole board and invited anybody from the board to weigh in and suggest any changes.

So Director Blanford if there is something that you feel at this point that you would like to revise I think we can still do that at this point is that correct?

No you absolutely could you could make a motion to amend and add some additional language the only thing I was going to point out is we did as we were working on this we did try and get some of the harassment and bullying language in there so if you note that last whereas clause reiterates the policy and strongly held belief of SPS to be safe and free from things like harassment and bullying so that is in there it could if you wanted to make an amendment to call it out even a little bit more you could.

And then of course we do have pretty strong harassment and intimidation and bullying policies on the books that we do enforce and protect kids if those things occur in schools.

But you could certainly make an amendment, make a motion to amend the resolution.

I would certainly entertain the motion to amend.

I submitted a fully formed resolution around this issue and it didn't receive very much consideration so I'm comfortable with just moving forward as is.

I will noting all the points that have been made, I believe that if we are making a strong statement around this issue that it should include as strong language around bullying which I think is the issue that most of our students are facing.

So maybe in another iteration we can revise the language or add additional language or write another resolution that will shore up any issues on this one.

Okay so you do not wish to make an amendment to this current resolution?

That is correct.

Are there any other questions or comments about this?

At this time.

All right seeing none Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Geary aye Director Harris aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute contract RFP 09614 for school bus transportation services for 2017 2020 with first student Inc. in the form of the contract agreement and attached to the school board action report with any minor additions, deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.

Can I second the motion?

May I hear from the chair of the committee where this was heard?

This item was heard by the operations committee on December 15 and moved forward for consideration.

Peters does anybody have any questions or comments about this item?

Director Pinkham.

I guess my concern comes up with one of our speakers today that spoke about yes she is working in over 30 hours per week but since it sounds like the average over a full year isn't 30 hours a week she isn't getting health coverage.

And I was trying to look over this document where it says that and it just says that part of it was that we are following City of Seattle employment laws with that.

Then again I don't have quick resources to do that to see what City of Seattle says and all I saw quickly was City of Seattle just says 30 hours or more per week.

So I need some clarification that yeah if we have bus drivers that are putting in 40 plus hours a week over the school year but then the summers aren't putting down any that they're not getting healthcare is this correct?

So yes the answer is yes that's correct that it is averaged over a full calendar year as opposed to a school year.

and Peggy McEvoy assistant superintendent operations.

Pinkham So I guess for me when I look at health coverage I thought that's usually like a month to month thing if you put in, if you're eligible for health care by working 20 plus hours a week I think it's one where usually I'm speaking from the state of Washington perspective that you get eligible for benefits And as long as you have that meet your what do they call it your probationary period that once you just put in one hour in one month you get health care benefits so why isn't this the same for the bus drivers where they have to wait until the whole year before they see if they are eligible or not?

I don't understand this.

So my understanding is and I am not an expert in this part of the contract but my understanding is that they look at a full year to see if in fact they have worked an average of 30 or 40 hours and then they become eligible for healthcare.

issues that came up in our last contract was the fact that first student was also trying to make sure that they were utilizing the affordable care act and were applying that.

And we do know that they are having to renegotiate that because of the changes that are coming up and they are planning to have conversations in June between the Teamsters and for student.

And of course as we are having an issue with having enough qualified drivers that we both attract and retain it is in our interest to make sure that as they have those conversations that We are letting them know that healthcare is a significant issue for our drivers as far as retention and we have plans to meet with both the Teamsters as well as the first student prior to them having those conversations in June.

Director Burke.

recognizing that this is the same question just phrased a different way because that's in some ways mind-boggling to me.

The first student is asking its employees to work for a calendar year prior to being benefit eligible?

The way and I may need Kathy to come step up to answer how they calculate that because she was at the table as they were negotiating some of these things but my understanding is that that's how they look to see who gets benefited.

It is how many hours they've worked previously and they do look at the school year but most of our drivers do not drive for summer school and so that changes their eligibility.

And what Pegi just said is correct they look at the average number of hours worked per week through the year and if they have 30 or more hours average per week through the year then they are eligible for the health care provided by first student.

The following year?

At their next open enrollment period.

Director Harris.

So when we put out the request for proposals I believe we put in the prologue that health care for our drivers was very important.

Is that correct?

That's correct and what we did I can give you a little overview here is we looked at what first student currently offers to their drivers and we looked at the number of drivers that participate.

Currently they have 96 drivers that work 30 or more hours per week and qualify to participate in the health care benefits.

28 of the 96 drivers do participate in the health care plan.

68 of those drivers opt out in lieu of a payment in lieu of the benefits so they get a payment.

We looked at we requested information on how many drivers work 20 or more hours a week and less than 30. How do we capture the majority of those drivers?

And there is about 304 drivers which is all of them remaining that work 20 or more hours a week and would qualify if we opted in on the health care plan for the drivers.

Basically it's a pass through of first students cost to the district if we were to select that option.

And is it my understanding that the pass through was prohibitively expensive and as well that first student basically has us over a barrel because we do not have two bus companies competing.

I believe that the cost is prohibitive with the current budget constraints that we're facing.

And yes we do not have another contractor that first student is competing with at this time.

Harris So when the Teamsters and first student set up to negotiate in June.

We could be looking at the potential of a strike come September?

I don't first I can't foresee that I can't.

It could happen.

It could happen.

OK.

Thank you.

Director Blanford and then Burke.

But it seems to me in my years of experience on the years of experience on the board that this is somewhat of a perennial problem.

We've had people come and testify that they haven't had healthcare benefits each year that I've been a board member.

And so it strikes me that there would be some value in getting to a new place but I also recognize to Director Harris's point the monopoly power that first student has at this time because they are the only one that is competing for our business.

And we had a rich discussion at the operations committee meeting about the threshold cost to actually compete in this market.

driven primarily by our high land cost and you have to have a lot of land in order to operate a bus company in Seattle right?

So all of that to say do you see a way out of this conundrum that we are in?

Because with the $74 million budget deficit It seems cost prohibitive for us to lump on another high cost to when we don't have enough money coming in to do all the things that we are supposed to do.

So I'm wondering if you can tell us of any avenue that you see out of this conundrum that we are in currently?

At this time I don't have an answer for that.

I would say that we have to have honest and frank conversations about this because one of the issues that we are struggling with is the fact that we are not getting enough qualified bus drivers and that is for students charge is to make sure that they hire and retain qualified bus drivers.

So I think we have some leverage and one of the things that we did in this new contract is we actually increased the penalties that we are issuing for students whenever they fail to follow the contract.

And I think that that is what we're going to be using as we negotiate further for them to actually perhaps look at maybe they need to revisit their healthcare offerings because that clearly has been indicated as being important to our bus drivers.

Pinkham.

Pinkham Yeah so again I still would like to see if I get more information about again they say they're following the city of Seattle's labor laws.

So is it city Seattle's labor laws too that they wait a full year to see if someone averaged more than 30 hours a week before they become?

I'm looking over at our general counsel what I can let you know is that we will go ahead and research that so that we can provide you updated information but we don't have that at this point.

Yes Noel Trujillo on council, I'm not sure that the city of Seattle has a mandated waiting period for health benefits, that's something we can look at.

I think really what dictates that is the collective bargaining agreement between the teamsters and first students.

So that's really the driving document.

I'm not sure it's city law that would actually come into play there but we can double check.

Because it's mentioned in the I think part of the contract that we are saying that they are saying yes we are following the city of Seattle labor laws.

Yeah and what they might mean is they follow all that apply but if there isn't a city ordinance that says employers must provide insurance with a 30 day waiting period or something like that then they wouldn't have that as a requirement.

I'll double check and we will let you know.

Director Harris.

If we were to change the term of this contract would we have to reopen it and put it out for bid?

Say for instance if we went from three years to two years or three years to one year given the crazy that health care is presently and what are the risks if we were to do said brainstorm in here because I don't like the fact that we are not giving healthcare but I recognize numbers.

Yeah that's a great question and I'm just going to ask for some help here I'm trying to remember if it's I don't think we are agreeing to a three-year term it's one-year term with we have a right to extend or is it three and two?

Yeah this is a three-year contract with two one-year optional renewals.

And we have clauses within the terms and conditions so if we did want to make a change at some point in the future we have an opportunity to do that.

Harris Do we have wiggle room language in there?

If in fact the ACA changes substantially would that allow us to renegotiate?

Given the fact that no one can tell what's going to happen in 60 days let alone six months?

Yeah we do have one thing we do have and this is standard for our contracts is what's called a termination for convenience provision which lets us essentially terminate without cause for any reason.

We would have to pay for services provided up to that date but we do have a pretty broad opening to revisit the contract should we decide to a year from now.

Even as is without amending the terms at all at this point.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Director Patu.

Patu Just for clarification does that mean that we're going to move forward on this contract without actually offering health to the bus drivers?

As it stands now we would move forward on the contract without offering the health care additional health care to those drivers.

Do we not have any creative options here?

The option is here if we choose to select it.

JoLynn Berge assistant superintendent for finance.

I think that we would probably chalk this up to one of those things under our worst case scenario budget that we don't want to have to do but this is the cards that we've been dealt today.

Staff is recommending that we move forward with the contract as it stands.

We do have as Noel was saying the option to Terminate for convenience and renegotiate if there were any significant funding changes or changes in healthcare requirements federally or by the state.

So all of those options would still be available for us.

Peters

Yeah I just want to also point out that kind of what the speaker brought up to here given that we have 180 school days to average 30 hours per week they'd have to work 8.6 hours per day.

And it seems a shame that someone that may put in 8.5 for those 180 days doesn't get health care.

Director Blanford.

And I think I know the answer to this question but I'm going to ask it anyhow.

Is Seattle Public Schools in a different place than other school districts around the Puget Sound area with regard to this issue?

We don't believe so.

We're one of the few that contract but most of them are providing those services directly.

They're running their own buses so we contract.

I would say it's not only a state problem but a national problem securing enough bus drivers.

Metro is having problems, everybody is.

And that's one of the reasons why we were looking to make sure that the contract did increase wages so that they could attract and be competitive with other agencies.

So if I could follow up on that, so it seems like there is some conversation about what options we could have in this situation.

We are not competing with other districts that contract for services, we are not competing with them so we are not at a competitive disadvantage but to take on healthcare costs for our bus drivers means that those are dollars that would be going into classrooms that would instead be going into pay the health care premiums for our bus drivers, correct?

Okay I just want to clear that up.

Director Burke and then Director Geary.

Do we have any sort of insight into what is the cost basis for greater engagement with the city and Metro around that?

Can they run designated routes for us that reduce our reliance on first student or some other type of private provider or is that a higher cost basis still for that work?

So we have had conversations with Metro when we first put our secondary students on Metro and that was one of the things that we were looking at.

We have had repeated conversations with Metro about could we in fact have more of our students on buses and right now they don't have the capacity to serve more of our students.

They are stretched as far as they can within the city.

It's something though that I know that you've had conversations with people in King County and the city about maybe being able to revisit that in the future but we have not gotten any commitment that they could do it at this point.

Director Geary.

The only competitive disadvantage we have is that we can't offer year round work and so therefore anybody who wants the stability and the payment for their full week of work would be inclined to go to an employer that could offer it.

Go to Metro go go someplace since we certainly can't offer them all summer work as well.

Director Patu.

If this contract is not voted on if it doesn't pass today what is that what effect does that have on the transportation?

then we wouldn't have transportation next year for students or we would have to go out to go through another procurement process.

And at this point we don't think that there would be very different results because we only did get one bidder and the primary reason that we weren't getting more bids was because there just wasn't the ability to jump into the Seattle market because there is no place for the buses because land is so difficult to find.

Thank you.

A risk question, so if we have drivers who are not insured does that not pose a risk to us and to our students?

Who don't have health insurance?

Well I think that we always want, and this is the nurse in me as I'm speaking also, I want everybody to have good health care so that they can make sure that they are living optimally and being able to work well.

Does it increase our risk?

I think that we in Seattle fortunately and the greater King County have a very good public health system and emergency management system which is not the same as a primary care physician.

but it does provide some support for those families that do not have adequate health coverage.

Peters If there are no more questions or comments is there?

Are there?

Director Geary.

Geary I just want to make the comment that this just seems like a perfect example of how as we as a society dismantle our safety net how it continues to fall on the door of our public schools one way or another and it's just too much for the system to bear when we are not willing to pay for it.

I just want to revisit one fact that Kathy shared with you earlier is that 68 of the 96 who qualify for benefits don't take them currently.

Director Patu.

Now you mentioned or at least one of you mentioned that when they don't when they opt out of that Medicare they're getting paid.

So can you explain what that is?

In their union contract they have a payout in lieu of opting into the benefits and depending on how many years of service they receive a set amount each year.

And I have a copy of that and I can send it to you.

So do they get that monthly or?

Annually.

Annually?

Okay thank you.

Let me follow up on Chief financial officer Berge's comment and your earlier information about those that qualify 60 of 90 take the payment.

We still don't know how many of the folks that don't qualify would take the payment.

I think we need to stretch out the whole equation because we have how many other folks that didn't qualify that are still driving.

Makes sense.

I understand your analysis.

But that's the data that we have that we're currently working with.

Okay I just I just want to make sure that we're we're clear when we're putting those numbers out on the table that we really don't have some of those significant numbers.

Peters.

So to the earlier point that I was making I believe that this is it's clear evidence of one of the more difficult decisions that we as school board directors have to make.

It is clear and has been repeated over a number of years that this is an issue that our bus drivers are facing.

when we discussed this in the operations committee we talked a little bit about the tragic incident that happened last fall in Tennessee and whereas no one can link the absence or the healthcare actually being available to that bus driver who ended up causing the death of several students.

You know we know that there is a correlation between having good health care and being a more effective employee which potentially has resonance for protecting our children.

With great reluctance I will vote for this but I would like for us in this time next year when there is a proposal to come before us or whenever the next proposal comes that we have some options that we can consider rather than just accept this or don't accept it because it puts us in a precarious place that I don't believe that board directors or the community as a whole expects of us and so my hope is that when the next contract comes up that we have some options that we can consider that are reasonable options that help to get us to a better place.

We definitely hope so too, I think the other struggle that we are working with is as we did the analysis for the board about could we afford to pay for the additional healthcare for our bus drivers and I know that was a serious ask by the board and certainly something that we seriously looked at.

we are at a $74 million deficit right now and we just don't have the funding.

And that was the option we were trying to present to you very seriously but we just know the realities of what our district is dealing with.

Peters

Should we at some point now or in the future get to a place where we feel we can adequately fund fair wages and benefits for our bus drivers, will that be fully reimbursed by the state?

Is this the same sort of thing where it's a cash flow situation for one year?

It's the cash flow for one year.

So does the state just basically say what is the check you wrote we will write it to you or is there some criteria in there about number of students or maximum?

It's going to partially depend on what the new education funding model that it goes through.

So right now under the current allocation formula it's a regression analysis of expected costs, the lower of expected costs or your actual costs and Seattle has been able to qualify for our actual costs under that analysis.

But if any of the other education plans that are being offered with a per pupil go forward it will dramatically change the landscape of that formula.

I appreciate that clarification I think that's super helpful so if I were to extend that forward and the decisions of the board or staff or labor negotiations or whatever creates the actual expense Now should that be something which is perceived to be above market value then the state could potentially reimburse a lower projected expense as compared to actual?

Bergenstein There's always the chance that the state could change the formula based on those kinds of factors.

I think this is terribly frustrating but it perfectly illustrates all of what's wrong with McCleary.

So the Senate Republican budget thinks that Seattle is being willful foolhardy inappropriate in our budget decisions for salaries and for other programs that we fund.

And therefore their plan would say that whatever we get for transportation comes out of the $12,500 per student.

And I don't know what the numbers were it was 178 million that we give up and we get $2 million back in that plan so do the math that's not good for Seattle.

So I mean it's yeah it's challenging and just like healthcare I guess we don't know what almost tomorrow will bring or next month or the end of this year so yes we can say that for the recent past, what's the thing they say about stock markets or something?

Past performance is no guarantee of something.

We can say that we have been and might be fully reimbursed but we are crawling farther and farther out on the limb and this is again a good illustration.

We would say Highly justified.

We can't get bus drivers.

We go through the bid process.

It's the price of doing business in Seattle.

It does cost us more money than it does other places in the state.

But the farther we crawl out on the limb the more it puts us in the crosshairs of some legislators in the state.

So yeah it's yeah it's just yeah it's frustrating.

I agree.

Peters that we have a less than ideal choice in front of us.

But I believe we've exhausted the discussion the topic this evening.

So I also am reluctant in my support of this item.

I know we need to have buses but I would like us to be able to offer the health care to our bus drivers.

So I will be reluctantly supporting this.

Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Harris.

Reluctantly yes.

Director Patu.

Reluctantly yes.

Director Pinkham.

I'll say nay.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Burke.

Dissatisfied yes.

Director Geary.

Aye.

Director Peters.

Aye reluctantly.

This motion passes 6 to 1 to 0 vote.

I move that Seattle's school board approve the three attached salary schedules as negotiated with the International Union of Operating Engineers local 609. Thereby amending the existing 2013 through 2017 collective bargaining agreement between the Seattle school district number one and the International Union of Operating Engineers local 609 and authorize the superintendent to take the associated actions necessary to implement the rates as specified on the schedules retroactively to September 1, 2016. The three salary schedules are for one custodial, two mechanical coordinator and three gardeners grounds.

I second the motion.

May we hear from the chair of operations committee?

This item was heard by the operations committee on January 19 and moved forward for approval.

Has anything changed since introduction?

Good evening directors, Stan Damas director of association, excuse me labor relations, no nothing has changed since the prior discussion.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

Seeing none Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Patu.

Aye.

Director Pinkham.

Aye.

Director Blanford.

Aye.

Director Geary aye Director Harris aye Director Peters aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

On to item number four.

I move that the board authorize allocation of up to two million three hundred twenty five thousand dollars from the BTA IV and program placement capital funds to implement annual capacity management actions in spring semester 2016-17 and summer 2017 to support projected district homeroom and program capacity needs for the 2017-18 school year and authorize the superintendent To take the necessary steps to implement the actions as detailed in the attached capacity management and program placement recommendations.

I second the motion.

May we hear from the chair of operations committee.

This item was heard on January 19 by the operations committee and moved forward for consideration.

In the interest of time would the chair of the operations committee like to also address the next few items?

Sure the next several items up until item 7 were all heard by the operations committee on January 19 and moved forward for consideration.

The last one was moved forward for approval.

Thank you.

Are there any questions about item 4?

Director Burke.

Good evening I have a one follow-up question I'm curious if there's any more clarity recognizing it's not part of this one if there's any more clarity around the Garfield capital solution.

So Richard Best director of capital projects and planning.

for Seattle Public Schools.

Director Burke we have gone back and looked at some historical photos of Garfield High School.

We have identified some areas where we have placed portables there in the past.

We are in the process of reaching out to principal Howard to review those locations to make sure they will not create some operational issues for Garfield high school if we were to place portables at those locations again.

So we've got two alternatives that we are reviewing with him.

That meeting has not yet occurred.

I know there's been a series of emails that have gone back and forth and he has seen aerial photos of where the proposed portable locations are planned for next summer.

Can you speak to the viability of having some of those students or some of that student growth accommodated at Ingram?

recognizing that Ingram is going to have an additional capacity?

Besting Ingram is going to be having four portables added there next summer and until we get the additional capacity as part of the BTA IV project 20 classroom addition at Ingram I do know that Ingram also is at capacity.

Do you know if this issue, the issues raised in this bar was brought before the capacity management task force?

There has been conversations with the capacity management task force concerning this bar.

It was discussed at our last meeting which was after introduction but prior to action.

And does that give you enough time then to solicit their input on how what you're proposing to the board is shaped?

I think Director Geary until we get to the end of the open enrollment period this list will remain somewhat in flux because we are basing this list upon current projections.

We are looking at the very active construction market in the city of Seattle.

having to get permits through regulatory agencies and then having to get contractors on board so we want to get started with that work but we will be vetting the capacity information that we are collecting with the capacity management task force as well.

It's just the next iteration is planned for the end of open enrollment which is approximately the end of February.

Okay that makes sense to me but it also makes sense to because this is an issue that comes up every year and one that is foreseeable that perhaps there is more lead way in terms of even what you are bringing to introduction with the capacity management task force so that if they have concerns about what is being presented they have the time and the opportunity to work on that as a task force and then raise it to us on the board by means of real public engagement versus what they may feel is cursory.

understand the concern this information is not generated from our enrollment planning department until approximately December and so to engage we don't have significant opportunities to engage the capacity task force in this conversation we then take the information that we enrollment planning department has generated, look at how the schools are currently being utilized to say do we have vacant classrooms?

Do we need to add portables?

Do we have lot coverage issues?

And so there are numerous considerations before we put together a plan.

And that plan got developed roughly middle of January.

So hence the sequencing, get the capacity bar, I can tell you we were frantically getting the capacity bar routed to get the operations committee to get it before you to take action on.

And so it's just a difficult sequencing given when we get the information.

and the information is generated upon October 1 enrollment projections and then that information is taken by our enrollment planning department to make projections for next year.

So sequencing is an issue.

Director Harris.

Thank you for that feedback.

You said something earlier and it kind of goes along a theme.

We are in touch with principal Howard as to whether or not these portables will work there.

Is this a principal Howard decision?

Is this an assistant superintendent Herndon decision?

Is this a conversation that the teaching and learning folks have had?

Please assure me that we're not talking about silos and that y'all are working together in terms of program placement etc.

Yes, I would say yes to all of those.

Principal Howard is involved, Associate Superintendent Herndon is involved, Associate Superintendent Tolley is involved, and then we have Sherry Cox is our liaison between capital projects and the office of teaching and learning and so she is involved as well.

Peters

I have to chime in for Rainier Beach here given that what kind of things that they are sharing as they are bringing in middle school students to tour the school and they are seeing a school that doesn't seem to be a very good repair that maybe are they opting then to go to Garfield or some other school that then requires us to put more buildings there so part of this enrollment increase does that include with the enrollment plan thinking that okay maybe not many people are going to choose to go to Rainier Beach you are going to choose to go to Garfield instead?

if that's the case then wouldn't it be better maybe to spend some money to improve Rainier Beach so students won't opt to go someplace else?

Best So I know that we have that data and I can tell you the makeup of kids transferring from other high school areas to Garfield.

I also know Garfield is the location of the highly capable cohort so.

But I can provide that in a Friday memo to the board, Director Pinkham.

I wouldn't want to quote off the top.

No, no, because I know they come from all over the district to go to Garfield High School.

And I do know that there are some that come from Rainier Beach and Franklin.

Some from Rainier Beach are going to Franklin, some from Rainier Beach are going to Garfield.

And I can clarify that.

And I will also just add because I did hear the public testimony tonight Rainier Beach we are looking at on a renovation as part of BEX V. It's something that we are studying at this moment in time and will be bringing at least having a conversation with the school board on.

Director Burke.

We don't want to get into a situation where we don't have enough lead time to get these pieces in place.

But one of the things that I struggle with is that a lot of our processes in the district not singling this one out particularly but they seem very linear.

So we need board approval so that we can pull permits so that we can do these different things.

Can we parallel any of this?

Can we pull permits without having this funding in place?

and then give you the flexibility to pull permits early but give us the flexibility to make an approval as a board based on actual enrollment figures.

Best That is a conversation that we are having internally and within capital projects and planning is there another way to do this so that we bring accurate information to the board because as I indicated earlier this information will change.

We have historically sought your approval when we are looking at short-term capacity needs to be addressed for the next school year.

We do have your approval in budget already so it seems like this is duplicating an effort that you've already approved.

I also think it's beneficial for you to know where kids are landing and some of the implications there for lot coverage issues that arose a couple years ago at Laurelhurst elementary school.

And I think having a board knowledgeable that that potentially is an issue because of public citizen comment to all of you is beneficial.

I thank you for that reply because I don't want to indicate that we want the information later because obviously the sooner we know the better.

But I think that the accuracy being able to have if we waited one month and had more accurate data that might be something that's worth considering.

So I appreciate hearing that that that is under review by your team now.

If there are no further questions or comments Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Pinkham aye Director Blanford aye Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Harris aye Director Patu aye Director Peters aye this motion passed unanimously.

I move that the school board authorize the superintendent to execute purchase orders through bid number 12646 with Troxell.

Communications for a total not to exceed $315,000 plus Washington state sales tax over fiscal years 2016-17 in the form of draft purchase orders attached to the board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the purchase orders.

Pinkham I second the motion.

Peters Director Patu.

I guess I have a concern when the speaker talked about we are actually having problems with some of our projectors especially if we are paying $350,000 for them.

Can you explain why we are having so much problem?

I guess the one here is also not working very good.

Best So I can say that Director Patu we installed several hundred projectors last summer and I'm aware of a couple of issues with projectors but I think we've had a great success rate on the installation of those projectors.

There have been issues you know about key stoning you know some technical issues that we had to come back and address but I don't I'm not aware of significant problems with our projector installations at our BEX IV schools that we opened last summer plus the elementary schools where we had capacity projects at so.

So I'm not aware of significant issues with projectors and I can't even speak to this one because I wasn't involved at all.

Director Burke.

Just as a point of clarity on that I think it was brought up at introduction that for example the projector we have here is the ones that we are looking at are short throw projectors, different styles, different technologies so that it's not necessarily an apples to apples comparison.

Thank you.

Peters if there are no further questions or comments Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Ritchie Director Blanford.

Peters He has momentarily left the room.

Ritchie Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Harris aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously?

Well it passed 6-0 well.

No it passed unanimously.

Unanimously?

There's only six of us.

I move that school board authorized superintendent utilize the G.C.

slash C.M.

alternative construction delivery method on the Ingram high school classroom addition project and award contract K 5 0 8 6 to Cornerstone contractors.

This authorizes the GC slash CM to immediately provide pre-construction services for an amount not to exceed $250,000.

This approval also authorizes the superintendent to negotiate and execute a contract amendment with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary for the guaranteed maximum price in parens GMP as defined by RCW 39.10.370 for an amount not to exceed $25,972,700 which includes specified general conditions, negotiated support services allowance and the maximum allowance allowable construction costs in Perren's MACC including the subcontractor bonds the MACC contingency and the GC slash CM fee no earlier than the completion of 90 percent construction documents unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

The GMP excludes the pre-construction services allowance and the Washington state sales tax.

Second the motion.

Are there any questions or comments about this item?

We already heard from the committee chair about this.

Seeing none Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Geary aye Director Harris aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke Director Peters.

Aye.

This motion passed unanimously.

I move that school board approve a one time fund transfer from the BTA IV program contingency for the Ballard Garfield and West Seattle high schools roof replacement projects in the amount of six million five hundred forty five thousand dollars.

Second the motion.

Has anything changed since introduction?

No nothing has changed on this since introduction.

Director Harris.

We've received some public comment about whether or not we could go back and claw back warranty repairs especially from Ballard and I would suggest to those people that have that question to watch the tape from the last board meeting because we beat that to death.

If there are no further questions or comments Ms. Ritchie the roll call please.

Director Harris aye Director Patu aye Director Pinkham aye Director Burke aye Director Geary aye Director Peters aye this motion passed unanimously.

Thank you so we now move on to the introduction items on our agenda.

First one is well the first one we've already discussed that was the adopting board resolution 2016 17 – 13 fully funding basic education.

Do we need to discuss it some more?

Director Harris was Director Geary in a position to make an amendment to remove language at this point or did you want to wait?

Why don't we just get some feedback between now and the next time that we were not making multiple motions to amend?

Would be my suggestion.

Peters This item was heard in the executive committee on February 2 where it was advanced to the full board for consideration.

If there are no further questions or comments on this item.

I recommend we move on to item number two and that is the City of Seattle Department of Education early learning Seattle preschool program service agreement 2017-18 that also came to the executive committee on February 2nd.

Okay it was advanced for action or consideration.

I believe there's two different motions attached to this for us to consider.

All right it would probably be helpful for somebody from staff to explain the two.

Good evening, Cashel Toner curriculum and instruction.

I'm going to keep this pretty brief because we've been here a while.

The first thing I'd like to talk about is the feedback we got from the executive committee to amend the bar and to unpack it to have two different motions.

And then the second thing I'd like to briefly talk about are the revisions to the service agreement in response to feedback from our board and from our city partners as well.

Okay, so as you know last spring the school board approved funding from the Seattle preschool program to have eight classrooms in Seattle Public Schools taught by Seattle Public Schools employees.

So we have eight classrooms right now, one located at Bailey Gatzert, Van Asselt, Original Van Asselt, Boren, Highland Park, Dearborn Park and Thornton Creek.

The first motion in the bar we put a chart at the bottom there to help you sort of follow along with the nuances of it but essentially the high-level concept there is to continue funding the eight classrooms that I just discussed, convert four of those to be purposeful inclusion classrooms and I would put a pause here and say that that is in response to the feedback from our task force.

So also last spring our board gave us direction to convene a task force of experts in the preschool field, parents, teachers, practitioners to come together and think deeply about funding, outreach and access.

So part of that recommendation, those recommendations were discussed at a school board work session And that really drove and informed this proposal to convert four of our current eight classrooms to be inclusion classrooms.

Staff would recommend those sites that have a little asterisk by them on the bar you'll see there, those would be co-located in schools that also have developmental preschools as well.

So that talks about the eight classrooms.

The next nuance of motion A there would be to have three of our classrooms at South Shore that are current preschool classrooms just change the funding stream to be Seattle preschool program.

And then the third component of motion A would be to fund out the second half of the day of two of our current headstart classrooms.

Remembering that headstart currently is a half-day model in most of our classrooms we would like to stack funding so have Seattle preschool program funding and then stack headstart funding to have a full school day for two of our headstart classrooms.

So that in summary talks about the nuances of motion A.

The next motion that our executive committee asked us to sort of unpack the original proposal would be just to entertain those new classrooms.

So we have capacity potentially for two to four brand-new classrooms of preschool.

And that would be responding to some of the board feedback we've gotten over the years talking about You know the intention of Seattle preschool program was twofold, one to improve quality but also to improve access so motion B has the opportunity for two to four actual new classrooms of preschool.

The locations are listed in the bar so you can look at those but two potentially could be at Cedar Park, one potentially could be at BF Day and then the third site could be Olympic Hills.

Okay so that's very quickly the summary of the two motions that are in the bar.

It's also we could pause here for questions but I also want to surface some of the changes to the service agreement that have been made and they touch on accountability metrics if you will.

So we could pause here or I could continue on.

I'll continue, okay so remember that the Seattle preschool program is funded with a mechanism of 75% initial funding, 25% funding is earned over time.

What we've learned over the last couple of years is that we've met every one of our performance metrics so good for us we are a high-quality provider but it's important what those performance metrics are.

So, in the service agreement we have, we still have nine performance metrics but some of them have come out and some new ones have come in.

I'm just going to read over exactly which ones they are.

If you're wondering where this is in all of those documents that were sent to you, it's on page, the performance table is on page 22 of the service agreement for, it's a draft service agreement for years 16 and 17. But I will tell you what they are.

So the first one that is really important and again this came from feedback from our task force would be to have Seattle Public Schools maintain enrollment of 7% of our students across all of our SPP classrooms, 7% of our students would have IEP services.

The second thing, the second performance metric that's changed would be meeting our SPS enrollment numbers.

So that gets to the nuance of making sure that you know our Head Start classrooms that Seattle Public Schools would be in charge of enrolling, South Shore technically speaking we are enrolling right now so holding us to making sure those classrooms are full.

And then also potentially if we had specific set-aside seats for students in those inclusion classrooms that were our special education students making sure that over time those seats are filled.

And the next performance metric actually speaks to that so enrolling 90% of the slots in our inclusion classrooms by the spring.

So making sure that those seats that are set aside actually are utilized.

And then submitting a classroom startup plan which lists items purchased for new classrooms.

So some of the milestones that were there have now gone away.

There are simple things like teachers will update or develop professional development plan in the fall and in the spring.

Just some of those nuances.

But I wanted to call your attention to the new things that are on that list of performance metric.

The last thing that I'd like to spend a moment on is something I'm actually really pleased about and it's something in the service agreement that's now called a banded payment.

So I know that the funding mechanisms for this program are complicated but bear with me because now there is actually a table that shows us you know if we were to do health screenings which is one of the performance metrics and we were to do 82% for some reason of the total screenings, there's now a band there that would say we would get 90% of that metric.

So that's good news.

It's actually a framework to help get funding, it's not an all or nothing thing.

But just know even without that there we've met all of our performance metrics.

Okay so that's a quick summary of the changes but you know if motion A and motion B were to be approved that would be pretty significant for Seattle schools.

That would be a total of 17 classrooms that we would be able to provide high quality preschool grant funded by Seattle preschool program.

Director Harris.

This may be one that Director Clancy may want to help with.

Why can't we have more inclusion classrooms this year?

A year ago we were in the midst of the EEU conversation.

We talked a lot about inclusion.

We talked a lot about equity.

why can't we?

McKayla Clancy director for special education, we want to do this well is the short answer.

And there are a great deal of unknowns, it's also incredibly exciting.

So we've chosen four sites to really look at the overall process make sure that we are providing high-quality specially designed instruction in a universal pre-K setting, we've never done this before so we want to do it carefully, we want to take data, we want to make sure we are engaging our staff in that process so we've chosen four, the original discussion was two to four so we went to four and the hope will be a three to five year plan of continuing to expand.

Director Harris.

Did I answer your question?

Director Harris.

The levy expires in how many years?

Director Geary.

I'm going to follow up on that.

So what I heard was that we are going to be pairing the inclusion classrooms in sites where they are already developmental preschools.

It's my understanding that the developmental preschools have over 90% kids identified with special education or IEPs.

and that the inclusion would then be another very high percentage population and I'm wondering why we are keeping all of our children with special needs concentrated in single schools as opposed to pairing up our inclusion classrooms with typically developmental developing preschool classrooms.

So that the kids have an opportunity to travel from the develop or pairing the developmental preschools with typically developing so those kids that spend much of their time in just a self-contained environment have then more opportunity to travel into a fully general ed situation versus gradiating up to just a different special education.

It just seems that we are creating pathways that are continuing to keep our special ed kids all in one spot and not really Allowing all of our students the benefit of a truly integrated model where all of our kids get to be with all different kinds of kids.

Because I don't see the benefit as just flowing one way.

So this is our first step in expanding our special education pre-K continuum.

So this is the first stage.

This looks closest to our access services that we are also working on in terms of our kindergarten students to do exactly what you just described.

Our development, we do need to look at where we can utilize the resources right now in that continuum.

And those four sites that we identified allow us to co-locate, make sure that we have the staff expertise.

And those ratios, right now it's five students with IEPs within a classroom of 18. So that's our hope to, there are always moments where we may have to adjust that slightly, but that's the current ratio.

So having five students with IEPs in a, overall classroom of 18 is an inclusive model and it's matching when we looked at the national data on this it's matching those averages and this is very new in terms of universal pre-K.

We've discussed this with some of our consultants right now and what we are doing is groundbreaking and we want to make sure that we are doing it well but it's really expanding that continuum.

This is the first step.

We want that full inclusion as much as we can.

The other challenge we have with that continuum is the state provides only half day funding very specifically.

There is no general education funding we had to point this out to Dell that there is no general education funding for our prefect students.

And they only provide that half-day developmental pre-K.

And we're looking at all sorts of opportunities to try and look at a more inclusive environment as appropriate for those students.

And we also need to remember in that continuum we have pre-K students who are also medically fragile.

And often we wouldn't want a full day, I mean where is that least restrictive environment within the full continuum for our pre-K students?

And I want to follow up on that, so you said you used the word access but I was trying to process a lot of information which made me think about the issue of as we put more kids with higher disabilities in one location what happens then when they go on to their next school?

Are they going to be traveling together or then do they disperse because we haven't actually located them in the preschool available within their assignment area?

Are we thinking about that in advance so that we don't hear from our special ed parents that all of a sudden the one typically developing child or group of typically developing children are going off to a totally different school?

So that's actually why you see the proposal that you do in terms of the regions and the sites that were chosen because we are starting similar to how we started access across the regions with four and then we're looking at the student assignment plan for our developmental preschool as well.

We have one area that is glaringly obvious, Central West, that does not have that pathway and we have a challenge and we were just looking at it today in our overall program placement considerations not for next year but the year after in this overall process to make sure with our pre-k students we're adhering as much as we possibly can to that same student assignment plan.

So they may adjust slightly in elementary, but they will come back together.

So we're trying to stay within that student assignment plan for pre-k as well as much as we possibly can.

And that is a major change.

And I think it is from board feedback and from community feedback about needing to do that for our youngest students.

And then I noticed that you said the five students and I did notice in reading through all the documents that DEL only provides additional resources when there are six kids with special needs within a classroom so are we limiting it to five because of that driver so that DEL doesn't have to provide additional funds?

No.

Are we sure?

I'm not clear on the DEL.

This is our special education funding that's funding those teachers.

We're actually repurposing our underutilized extended day services and we did that through a capacity review so that's the funding that's being used to fund these inclusion teachers.

So there are lots of DELs so there's the state department of early learning right which I think we were referencing there and then there's also the city's department of education and early learning that's deal and we've had many many collaborative conversations with our city partners to talk about what does the funding model look like to make sure that this is budget neutral you all have been super clear about that.

And so the inclusion classroom budget model you could think of it like SPP plus because they'll be funding us as a full classroom even though there will be fewer children in those classrooms as we're discussing it now 18 they would still be funding us at the 20. We would have you know what we're talking about right now would be you know five with some you know leeway their students with special needs and then 13 students typically developing that the city would enroll.

And so let me find the language because I'm curious as to why the number was chosen.

special populations the DEEL coach may approve additional funding funds requested and reimbursed outside of this agreement if one classroom has six or more children enrolled with documented evidence of social emotional physical or behavioral health and developmental challenges and that's on page.

overall 57-16 of the, oh the 15-16 service agreement.

So does that provision still exist?

Oh hi.

Monica Liang-Aguirre with the Department of Education and Early Learning, City of Seattle.

That is a special populations fund which is just a provision of SPP for all of our providers and so that is additional funding available for any classrooms that have a particular need in them and that number was chosen at one point.

And we have been we have been using those funds as necessary as in collaboration with our instructional coaches and as needed basis but we've discussed with Seattle Public Schools that that would be that certainly those classrooms would be eligible for funding.

Peters Okay.

Director Harris.

I'll bite Monica.

What other providers are using those funds and or do does the city run into equal opportunity issues with respect to special needs and inclusion.

So Seattle public's Seattle preschool program is open to all students.

There is no selection criteria of whether or not a child has an IEP or has a development delay of any sort.

We don't when children apply to SPP we don't ask if they have an IEP or if they have any developmental delays.

Only after a child has been selected and they are enrolled is when we find that out.

So we do actually have children throughout our SPP programs within Seattle Public Schools as well as the community-based organizations that have IEPs.

And we work closely with the district to make sure that those children receive the services that they need in an arrangement that we have with the district.

So, one of the confusing things when we talk about inclusion classroom, technically all of our classrooms already are inclusion, we're just not, I think Keshel used a new term today, purposefully I think is what you said or intentional inclusion, where we are intentionally designating a number of spots, five spots in a classroom for students with IEPs.

so that they cannot be filled by any other children and making sure that we have the proper supports and staffing in those classrooms so that all children can be successful.

But in reality we actually have already many classrooms throughout the system that have students with special needs in them.

I'm not sure I answered your exact question though so tell me again.

I'm not sure you did either I won't belabor the point I would ask two questions.

One could we see the numbers of special needs children throughout the Seattle preschool program?

Yes.

would the city be adverse to raising the number from five to six children in purposefully inclusion classrooms?

The city is not adverse to that.

That would be something we would want to discuss to see what works programmatically and what what the research shows us is the most effective ratios.

Yep.

Director Burke.

Capacity overlay question, since we are looking at both capacity management at this meeting and also the extension expansion of the SPP sites I am wondering if you can give us any sort of feedback on where you are seeing capacity pressures that could be putting these programs at risk?

You know the one specific one that shows up on both lists is Boren stem which has funds allocated for capacity mitigation and a continuation of a pre-K program and I just want to make sure that we are far enough out ahead of our buildings where we might be at or close to full utilization that we are not creating a disruption at the last minute and undermining the good work that's happening.

So Richard Best director of capital projects and planning to answer your question specifically about Boren STEM.

and why you see classrooms being added there.

This is the eighth grade component to complete the K8 continuum so we are adding two classrooms.

It is currently this school year a K7 classroom looking at the schools that have been selected they were selected in consultation with Michelle Toner, Joe Wolf, myself and Dr. Herndon because they did have capacity available for a predictable time in the future.

So, we would not be evicting someone from Olympic Hills, from Cedar Park, from BF Day in the near future because we had capacity concerns.

So, we looked at the five-year data to make sure that we would not need to address that and that was one of Dr. Herndon's requirements in conversations with Cashel Toner is exactly your point Director Burke.

Director Geary.

All that said I'm really very thankful.

I think back to when I first came on and we had the whole EEU situation and the direction was to try and gather up and incorporate what they are doing and make that more available more equitably available throughout our city.

So don't mistake my.

questions as not being extremely appreciative I just want to make sure that we are moving this forward as you do I'm sure as quickly as possible but I appreciate that we need to do it right.

I want us to continue to look at our classrooms that are 90% special ed and continue to look for opportunities to make those children or allow those children access to more inclusive environments as well.

I know the back and forth between an inclusion classroom with an 18 five will make that possible.

But I think we we should continue to work to do better in that regard.

And so I will continue to watch this.

But I'm glad to see that we have been heard and we're making the most of the expertise that we're already paying for.

Thanks.

It's been made very clear that preschool is very beneficial and it can certainly help a lot of students especially students who this sort of program especially students who might not otherwise be able to families might not be able to afford it.

So that's not what's in question here.

My concern has been from the beginning though that the district is overextending itself with programs like this.

and every year we are being asked to commit more space, more resources, more attention to preschool.

And I find that challenging this year because at the same time we are being told we are looking at a $74 million potential deficit and I know this preschool program is grant funded but it is still taking attention and resources away from our K-12 which is our primary mandate.

And so that worries me that we are slashing and cutting back on other elements of what we do to function as a district.

But we have endless resources and energy and space for pre-K.

And I'm having trouble understanding why we are prioritizing things the way we are.

I have a document here from a few years ago this was from City Council member Tim Burgess and he was one of the main proponents of the pre-K program and this was his newsletter that he sends out and he sent this out right after the proposal got passed by the voters.

And one paragraph here says as a voluntary program for both parents and providers the Seattle preschool program does not divert funding away from existing programs for childcare or preschool nor does it require any space from the Seattle school district.

And yet each year we're being asked to designate more space to it.

So I share the capacity concerns that Director Burke has mentioned.

I'm worried about over committing space as a growing district.

I'm also concerned about the amount of effort that's in money that's going into what is only going to be serving 340 students.

It works out to be about $217,000 per classroom or 10 to $11,000 per student.

So it's a really big investment and I know that it's worthwhile but it's really hard to understand how we can find all these resources for just one part of the district and yet we are cutting in so many other places.

Now one of the issues I've always had from the beginning is the fact that the city insists on withholding 25% from the district until the district meets certain benchmarks and then that money is you know reimbursed.

And I understand there is grant money that bridges that and the district is not at risk But it's a strange concept, it's a strange concept in that if we are true partners it shouldn't be necessary and the fact is the district is providing free space for the city's program and so it's always been an odd partnership.

And I know the task force was asked to look at two things, they were asked to look at how to make the preschool program more inclusive for special ed students and I think that was a fantastic request and I'm glad to hear that there is progress made there and my colleagues have addressed that point already.

But the other thing they were asked to look at was about that 25% withholding and the task force response was it's not a problem.

But I look at the task force and I see who is on it and it's teachers, parents, some people from the city, the really at work people who are responsible for the fiscal stability of the district on the task force in a position to make that judgment.

And I just don't believe that this is an arrangement the district should have agreed to in terms of the financing of this.

And at this point we are up to about $3.8 million is how much this amount of money for this program.

Which means about 900 nearly a million dollars will be withheld at 25% until it's reimbursed by the grant money.

So we now have eight existing classrooms and we haven't finished a year yet.

I would like to know more about how successful they are before we expand you know into 13 or 17. I'm also nervous about us committing space like I said before and so you know I'm torn because I know there's value in preschool but I also know that we're being asked as a district to cut back on our K-12 services but at the same time we're being asked to expand our preschool services.

And it seems like a contradictory message and I'd like to understand how to explain this to constituents.

Thank you.

So thank you for your feedback it actually makes our programming stronger as we've gone on so over the years we've made course corrections and things I think the first thing I would touch on would be yes the investment in preschool some would argue that it actually saves K-12 dollars because if your intervention in preschool is actually if it's high-quality and it's effective then in theory students would need services as they enter the K-12 system, special education services.

intervention services, language support services.

So we could say that we are utilizing a funding stream that is a city funding stream to invest in our preschool students at no cost to the district, potentially saving those precious K-12 resources.

I understand that there is a messaging challenge because the larger context of Seattle Public Schools, the K-12 part has a significant budget shortfall.

This particular grant given the direction from the board has been completely separate from those K-12 dollars because of the other grant dollars we used to start with a 25% shortcoming.

But I do understand that the community at large might have a difficult time understanding the difference between you know our larger budget shortfall and this grant funding stream.

The grant dollars though when we did build this budget actually account for all of the costs that we could come up with.

Administrative staff, office support, nursing support, photocopy paper, construction paper, you know school supplies because we wanted to make these classrooms as much as we could part of the P5 campus because there is also a lot of research that says if you just invest in preschool and you forget the rest of the early learning system then you actually lose your investment.

So remember when we've had our two by two meetings that the early learning system actually encompasses specialized professional development for teachers, the early learning department has invested in professional development for all of the kindergarten teachers systematically at the title I schools.

Then the next year we worked with all of our first-grade teachers, the next year we worked with all of our second-grade teachers.

Building that continuum preschool through next year will be third grade of common instructional practice.

So you have to realize that there is actually a larger system of early learning work that happens.

but what we have the challenge around is access to high-quality preschool.

We simply don't have enough of it in Seattle.

So the voters in Seattle said okay we will give you a funding stream, levy dollars to fund that specific work to enhance the larger early learning system in the city of Seattle.

And I appreciate that response Ms. Toner.

The only other thing that I would add to it is that voters in Seattle created that funding stream but they created it with some measure of accountability.

that is a crucial part of it and so I see that 25% hold back as one of the mechanisms to ensure some measure of accountability.

We may not like it, we may wish for 100% funding but because it was written into the legislation that allowed for the levy to actually exist there is some measure of accountability and looking at our track record since we've become involved in this program we've hit 100% of the measures.

So I can understand the concern that has been voiced around that but I would encourage us to look forward and see the possibilities and particularly see the benefits that Seattle Public Schools reaps as a result of participation in the program.

Director Harris.

I remember several years ago going through that ordinance with a fine tooth comb and not finding the 25% hold back accountability measure in it.

I don't want to debate the point but I don't think it was part of the ordinance and I think that you know it's on us and it's on the city to see whether or not two years from now we can address levy fatigue and whether we're going to vote our money for our values and and you know props to the city.

We have challenged them greatly.

We've thrown the gauntlet their way and they're working with us and I'm very appreciative of that.

Director Blanford.

Not to get into an argument about it, there was not a and if you heard me to say that I was saying that there was a 25% hold back in the legislation there was not.

But there was a really clear statement and I attended a number of the campaign events where we talked about there being some mechanism that needed to be in place to assure that there was accountability.

Usually the way my understanding of the way that this type of legislation is written is that after it's approved by the voters then there is some actual conversation about how to implement it and that's where the 25% hold back may have actually entered the conversation.

I also recall from a historic perspective that when this whole concept was first brought to the board about whether the board wanted to be partners with the city on this, the holdback wasn't initially mentioned.

It was brought up in a separate work session and I remember the previous board was quite surprised by that and the proposal did not make it out of committee in part because that was a new concept that was being brought.

I think the voters were also not informed that the Seattle school district would be one of the major sites for the preschool program.

So I think it's fair to say that the whole plan from what was presented to the voters and what we have now has evolved.

And I don't think that's necessarily unusual but I think we should acknowledge that everything wasn't completely on the table when this was first brought forth to the voters.

I just want to say that it seems to me that preschool is citywide, statewide, nationwide being focused on.

going way way back to when I was a child these were all the same conversations that were around Head Start.

And it seems like we are reinventing the wheel all of a sudden when all of this information has been around for a long time.

So I'm glad we are moving forward in this direction based upon stuff that apparently we knew at some point in the 70s and forgot about.

And so I think it's important that we.

That we, isn't that right?

Yeah I mean I just remember hearing about it.

1965 I think is when Head Start was started.

Yeah so I was born in 66 so that was a lot of conversation when I was a little kid and thinking wow preschool that's awesome.

So it's good that we're moving forward and putting some historical perspective on it.

We should be doing this work.

It should have been done.

I think the important thing we shouldn't lose sight of is that our families want it.

And we see that in terms of even the conflict between Loyal Heights populations.

And to the extent that we can do this and meet our obligations to our kids this is what our families want.

And to not do this will not ultimately serve our families nor make them think the best I think of Seattle Public Schools.

So we need to be careful certainly.

It would be nice if we could as we increase rooms the holdback remains the same rather than being a percentage based upon the number of rooms so that we are not constantly having to come up with more grant money in the future.

Maybe that type of arrangement because we know we have the grant money that covered that first year we get the reimbursement and it rolls over so we are not at further risk because we've got it covered.

But as we increase the program we assume more of that risk.

So it would be nice maybe in our next contract to look for a way of holding that money at a set amount.

It'll still be enough to show for accountability.

It'll be a relevant amount of money but it doesn't need to increase as we're trying to meet the needs of our families.

I don't think increased holdback is what they need for accountability.

Peters.

Also I would like to say that preschool gives a lot of parents of color opportunity for their kids to be school ready.

And you know when I talk to a lot of my communities they are very happy to have preschools within the district that allows their kids to have the opportunity to be able to attend preschools so they can be able to have the same opportunities as kids who actually can't afford to go to preschools.

So I think it's a great idea and as long as the city is funding us I think that you know it's an opportunity for us to also to help eliminate opportunity gaps.

That's another way that we can actually get a lot of our kids of color to be school ready.

And you know sometimes we look at wait a minute how come they are really moving so fast?

But you know I remember back that you know my kids attended preschool and it was preschool that got them ready so they can actually be ready for college when they continue on and so for me it's a great opportunity for our kids to have that opportunity and I'm glad that we have that opportunity so hopefully that and then also it's a recruitment piece.

I know a lot of schools that I visit most of the kids that are attending preschools right now are getting registered for kindergarten within their school so I think it's benefiting us one way or the other.

Just to follow up from what Director Geary said about this is not a new idea, the Seattle school district has been offering preschool for many years to hundreds of students so what's new is the city embracing this idea and then wanting to partner with the district and that was part of the kerfuffle at the beginning was that the city initially didn't seem to acknowledge as clearly as it might have that the district already brought a great deal of expertise to this area and a lot of experience.

So I have a question about these two motions and just the logistics of this.

So what we have here are one motion that has maintaining the existing eight classrooms and adding five more or a second motion which is all of the above plus four more.

Is that correct?

I know we're not voting tonight but I just want people to start thinking about what it is we're going to be asked to do in two weeks.

Ronald Boya senior assistant general counsel.

That is correct.

Those are the two motions that you'd vote on each.

The first just as you said for that set of classrooms and that was pursuant to the discussions that we had that we wanted the new inclusion classrooms to be included so that the other classrooms that are just completely new are on that second motion.

Okay well in the first motion though the two Head Start ones and the three South Shore are those inclusion classrooms?

So it was I believe that from the committee it was that we were doing the head start or now expanding to full day.

So those are existing classrooms with additional time funded by the SPP grant and then the inclusion classrooms also being wrapped into that.

So then it would just be the is that correct?

the South Shore.

Because it looks like this from what I understand the eight existing classrooms we have now of those eight a number of those are going to become inclusion classrooms.

The ones with an asterisk next to them.

So given the feedback from the executive committee it sounded like the desire was to have the first motion.

I think it was put forward for approval which was what the first motion is.

So that would be of the eight classrooms we have right now four of them would turn into inclusion classrooms.

Three of them from South Shore would change a funding stream and then two more from the Head Start so that gets you to a package of 13. And we pulled out the ones that we heard feedback there was some questioning around which were the brand new new ones so that's what's in the second motion.

Okay so we've got the eight existing classrooms that we already are operating right now but four of them would be converted to inclusion.

classrooms.

But then two Head Start locations would convert, two existing Head Start locations would convert from half day to a whole day preschool.

So those would be added, those would be added partnership classrooms and then three South Shore preschool classrooms right now that are being operated with different funding stream, different program would now also be added.

Okay so So motion A doesn't just give us our status quo, it's giving us some inclusion classrooms and it's adding five more sites to this partnership.

Correct I thought that was the feedback from the board.

Right no I'm not exactly I'm just trying to be really explicit because it's a little complicated and next you know when we vote on it I want everyone to be clear on what we are voting on.

So motion A is not a status quo motion it's still changing things somewhat and adding five more classrooms.

And then motion B would be in addition to that adding the four more, one at Olympic Hills, two at Cedar Park and one at BF Day.

So that would be even more of an expansion.

Because we wanted to make it very explicit that this was adding new classrooms and also in a different area of the city which I think is an important issue as well.

So the first was for approval.

The second was for consideration.

And it does read two to four because the facilities question we want to make absolutely sure that those sites are available.

Director Geary.

I just wanted to highlight for the public if that the headstart locations moving to full day that is something that the feds want us to do with headstart anyway and it is my understanding that they encourage partnerships with multiple funding streams in moving to full day.

So for anybody who wonders or has questions about that.

Are there any other questions or comments on this item?

All right thank you all very much we will see you in a couple of weeks.

So the next item for introduction is item 3 amending the 16-17 superintendent evaluation criteria.

This came to the executive committee on February 2 where it was advanced for approval.

Director Burke.

I will speak to this motion.

A little bit of backstory, a little bit of overview, a little bit of forward kind of perspective.

As you all recall vividly when we went through the superintendent evaluation process it consisted of a set of rubrics related to smart goals.

and a component rubric that represented elements of professional practice.

And the feedback that I believe was that I had heard and that I had shared was that it didn't feel like it properly represented the body of work that a superintendent is really responsible for.

because it was really focused on the smart goals and had a very limited scope around professional practice.

And when we think about what we expect our district leader to do a huge part of it is professional practice and that's an underlying thing that leads to all the work on the smart goals.

And so the President Patu at that time President Patu nominated me to help with that process and so we got together with Superintendent Nyland and Aaron Bennett and brainstormed what are the different strategies that could help improve that and build that forward.

Huge thank you to Aaron Bennett for doing the heavy lifting and a huge thank you to Dr. Nyland for some challenging conversations of well how do we evaluate you?

How should you be evaluated?

And I think it was a pretty rich discussion but what came out of it was the idea that we could do a deeper dive on professional practice.

And so the proposed evaluation tool is actually three components, one existing one is the smart goals just like it was last year.

or last evaluation cycle but now there is a more explicit focus on professional practice that includes a just a broader range of perspectives through what I consider a nimble survey process.

The superintendent does a self-evaluation, the board does an evaluation, cabinet does an evaluation and some of our lead partners would participate in the evaluation and all that information would feed back to the board and would help us have a broader perspective about where the areas of professional practice that could have the most leverage.

And from that work it leads us into guidance for the following year of what area of professional practice should be a focus goal and what attributes of professional practice are most beneficial.

So I'll point you to page 16 of the bar that has a table that illustrates this graphically There is a part A which is the general professional practice, a part B which is the focus, and then a part C which is the existing smart goals section.

And so what we are proposing is for, there is an evaluation cycle that comes up for June 2017 and the proposal is to implement this tool but just for parts A and C so we get general feedback on professional practice, broad perspective, and a deep dive on smart goals based on a rubric and then that would inform us for what should be the focus area for the following year.

Also as part of the bar in the following page Page 17 is the draft professional practice survey.

And so the intent is that this is the tool it's a page and plus a couple items so it should be quick to do, easy to engage the different participants in it and provide an actual roll up that hopefully will provide a more candid and thoughtful and broad reaching view of our superintendent.

Anything to add?

The only thing I'd add is that the both the survey and the job description were based on the model from the Washington State School Directors Association.

So I just wanted to call that out.

Thank you.

I would just echo all of those comments.

Thank you to Rick and Betty and Aaron.

Good discussions and good explanation.

Peters Any other questions or comments about this item?

Thank you.

Our next item.

Number four amending board policy number 1210 annual organizational meeting slash election of officers.

This came to the executive committee on February 2nd and was advanced to the full board for approval.

Good evening directors I'm Nate Manduza director of policy and board relations.

This is a pretty technical policy change here in front of you it's a proposed amendment brings this policy into line with state law when we went through the last election cycle for board officers.

Theresa Hale actually noticed that in state law it requires a majority of the board all members of the board to elect an officer and we had that right in one policy but in this policy it said a majority of board members present.

So we are simply making it so that this aligns with state law by saying a majority of all seven board members as opposed to the majority of whichever board members happen to be present at the meeting.

So can you repeat that part again?

Sure, state law requires that the election of board officers be by majority of all members of the board regardless of whether they are present which means you need four members to support someone's election as a board officer.

The policy as it had been written said a majority of board members present and so we are simply amending that to say taking out the word present so whenever there is an election a majority of the entire board will be needed so you will need four votes regardless of how many people are in the room.

But I always thought you needed for a vote to always pass anything that the board votes on.

In practice at this meeting all of the board members have been present and so this really makes no difference to how things will work.

But we wanted to align our policy with the specific language in state law.

This is called a technical cleanup.

Thank you.

So now I will go on to our final item for the evening and that is on this current agenda that is.

We have one thing we have to do afterwards.

City year contract modification audit and finance committee chair do you want to speak to that?

We thought this was wonderful and we want to know if we can have red jackets.

What do you speak to this and why this is coming to us later even though you knew it was probably coming?

Michael Stone director of grants fiscal compliance this is coming forward to you tonight as a modification to the contract that was passed last July.

for the city year of Seattle for the work they do at schools.

At the time we were having some transition at two of the schools that are making up the majority of this modification.

Leadership changes took place, we wanted to give those leaders some time to evaluate the program and see if they wanted to continue with it into the school year.

Even though that budget decision had been made but the prior principal we wanted them to be able to come in and look at it and since this was coming from a different funding stream than the original contract we didn't flag it coming in and that's something we will do from now on that if we know this is going to happen we will bring it up when the next contract when we bring it forward in July or June for the FEL contract.

Harris and we have a gentle person's agreement when you know this is coming you are going to flag it as an informational item.

so that everybody is tracking it so it's not a surprise.

Director Patu.

I guess out of curiosity who fully funds this program?

Is it the district or it comes from various funding?

We have to pay a portion I mean they also have international funding that comes in to support the work there is some AmeriCorps funding that they receive but we have to also pay a portion of it because that does not meet all of the cost for their core members.

Peters Thank you.

Director Burke.

I see I think drilling down on that question a little bit further it indicates $200,000 of this $310,000 $200,000 is from title one part A and $110,000 from general fund dollars?

Yes.

What is the eligibility under title one part A?

They are providing academic before and after school support at these buildings so it meets the requirements as supplemental.

I guess what are the requirements under Title I Part A, just that characterization?

Oh well these schools are eligible for Title I Part A, they are using their building funds to pay for it.

That they receive out of an allocation.

Free and reduced lunch, Title I Part A. Any school, any K5 that is above 35% receives a portion of our Title I Part A allocation.

Thank you.

Peters All right if there are no further comments or questions then we are now going into executive session.

Yeah before you make the announcement I think your documents say 45 minutes and we did change the list around so I might be overly optimistic but maybe we start with 30 minutes and see if that's sufficient.

All right then I'll go ahead and read my little script.

So we are now going to recessing the regular board meeting into executive session to discuss the consideration of the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase.

Labor negotiations.

Is that right?

No no.

So it's not the land owner.

Okay and to evaluate the performance of a public employee.

So this is scheduled for 30 minutes with an anticipated end time of I guess 9 52?

And at which time the board will reconvene here to conclude this meeting.