[00:00:02]
[Call the Work Session to Order]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.IT IS NOT VALENTINE'S DAY, NOT MEETINGS ON VALENTINE'S DAY.
[1. Discussion of Staggered Term Elections for School Board Members]
SO. IT'S WORKING.OR COMING TOGETHER TO DISCUSS VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR STAGGERED TERMS TODAY.
SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. SMITH. RIGHT.
SO TONIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TERMS. THIS IS AN ONGOING CONTINUATION OF A PRIOR CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE HAD.
AND REALLY, OUR OBJECTIVE TONIGHT IS TO ENSURE THAT AS WE CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC'S PERSPECTIVE THROUGH A SURVEY AND LISTENING, THAT WE'RE LISTENING FOR THE RIGHT THINGS, THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT CRITERIA AND LENSES TO LOOK THROUGH WHEN WE CREATE THE SURVEY. AND SO TONIGHT, THAT'S THE PRIMARY THING THAT WE'RE ASKING FROM THE BOARD IS TO VALIDATE SOME THINKING ABOUT WHAT THOSE CRITERIA SHOULD BE.
WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY DECISIONS.
WE'RE NOT. AND MAKING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT A SPECIFIC SCENARIO VERSUS ANOTHER ONE.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT CRITERIA TONIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS TO GO THROUGH.
SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH QUICKLY HERE SOME SORT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
THIS IS A SLIDE WE SAW BEFORE.
THIS IS AN ONGOING CONVERSATION FROM PREVIOUSLY.
WE'VE GOT A THREE YEAR TERMS, ETC..
PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CONTENT.
BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT IT'S NOT TRUE.
OUR REPRESENTATIVE HAS TOLD US THAT IT'S SIMPLY A CHANGE TO THE CHARTER.
AND SO THIS IS HERE AND CROSSED OUT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S NO LONGER APPLIES.
THE LAST TIME I TALKED ABOUT THIS, IT'S SIMPLY A CHANGE TO THE CITY CHARTER.
AND ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THE SAME THING.
IT'S A CHANGE TO THE CITY CHARTER.
SO WE'VE CROSSED OUT THE AMENDMENTS OF VIRGINIA.
ALL THE CITY CHARTERS ARE REFLECTED IN THE CODE.
IT'S OTHER. THEY SIMPLY ACCEPT WHAT THE CITY CHARTER IS.
SURVEY, PUBLIC HEARING AND OTHER WORK SESSION, A RESOLUTION.
AFTER THAT, THE CITY COUNCIL DRAFTS THE CHARTER REVISIONS.
THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT DRAFT CHARTER LEGISLATION.
IT GOES INTO THE CANDIDATE PACKETS IN JANUARY AND PROCEEDS FORWARD.
SO LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
NO DECISIONS MADE, LOTS OF LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CURRENT SORT OF SITUATIONS AND COMPARING.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE TAG TEAMING HERE.
THIS BOOST, YOU WANT TO COVER SOME OF THESE SLIDES THAT YOU HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY, PERHAPS.
FAIRFAX COUNTY ALSO DOES THAT.
SO THEY DO STAGGER IT. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE BOARD, THERE'S ONLY THREE CITY SCHOOL BOARDS IN VIRGINIA THAT HAVE THAT SERVE ON CONCURRENT TERMS. THE MAJORITY OF SCHOOL DIVISIONS DO FOUR YEAR TERMS, SOME 14 YEAR TERMS, SOME 14 SCHOOL, NOT 14 YEAR TERMS. GOOD LORD, NOBODY WOULD EVER SIGN UP FOR THAT GIG.
14 SCHOOL BOARDS SERVE FOR THREE YEAR TERMS, AND THEN THERE'S ONE SCHOOL BOARD THAT SERVES FOR TWO YEAR TERMS. AND THIS IS JUST MY DAUGHTER IS TRYING TO FACETIME ME RIGHT NOW.
1994 WAS THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE DID AN ELECTION.
ELECTED MEMBERS PRIOR TO THAT THAT WE WERE WE HAD APPOINTED MEMBERS.
SO THIS WAS LOOKING AT THE SWING OF NEW MEMBERS PER EVERY THREE YEARS SINCE 1994.
AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT IF THERE WAS A CHANGE IN SUPERINTENDENCY BASED ON SOME OF THOSE NEW MEMBERS DURING THOSE PARTICULAR TERMS. 1994, WHERE IT SAYS EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS THE FIRST ELECTION, I WAS LOOKING AT ALSO MEMBERS THAT HAD SERVED PREVIOUSLY THAT WERE ABLE TO GET ELECTED IN 1994 FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPOINTED.
[00:05:02]
SO JUST BUILDING OFF OF WHAT MS..BOOS WAS PRESENTING ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, THIS IS ALSO A SLIDE THAT YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE.
THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF COMPILATION OF THOSE DATA FROM THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
IN OTHER THINGS CONTINUING ON ON AVERAGE AS A SUPER.
ACPS SUPERINTENDENTS RESIGNED NINE MONTHS AFTER SCHOOL BOARD TAKES OFFICE SINCE 94.
FOUR OF THE FIVE SUPERINTENDENTS LEFT WHEN THE SCHOOL BOARD TURNOVER WAS FIVE OR MORE MEMBERS.
AND ON AVERAGE, THE TENURE OF A SUPERINTENDENT SINCE WE SWITCHED TO AN ELECTED BOARD IS ABOUT FIVE YEARS, WHICH IS A 2.75 YEAR DECLINE FROM THE PREVIOUS SUPERINTENDENTS BEFORE THAT NEXT SLIDE.
SO JUST TO GO OVER AGAIN, AGAIN, THIS IS A SLIDE WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PREVIOUS WORKSHOP SESSION, BUT THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF STAGGERED AND OR EXTENDED TERMS INCLUDE OUR RETENTION OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AS WE HAVE MORE BOARD MEMBERS STAYING ON OVER A LONGER TIME OR OVERLAPPING THIS.
THIS WOULD ENSURE THE CONTINUITY OF POLICY.
ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE EXTENDED TERMS GOING FROM 3 TO 4 YEARS, MEANS THAT VOTERS MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT LONGER BEFORE THEY ELECT NEW SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.
AND IT MIGHT BE EASIER OR EASIER FOR ORGANIZED GROUPS TO OPPOSE AN INDIVIDUAL.
AND THIS ONLY APPLIES TO CERTAIN MODELS.
SO WE CAN DISCUSS THAT WHEN LONG.
SO THIS SLIDE PROBABLY REPRESENTS THE KEY OF TODAY'S CONVERSATION.
AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND ALL OF THE THOUGHTS, WE SORT OF TRIED TO COME UP WITH THE CORE IDEAS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH CHANGING THE TERM.
SO WE CAME UP WITH TWO MAJOR KEY CRITERIA THAT THE CHANGE SHOULD IMPROVE THE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS FOR ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND SHOULD IMPROVE RESIDENT REPRESENTATION.
SO THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONALLY.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, THE QUESTION IS DOES IT IMPROVE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS? DOES IT IMPROVE RESIDENT REPRESENTATION? THAT'S WHAT WE SAW SO FAR.
THIS IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR.
RIGHT. AND WE'VE LOOKED AT SORT OF FIVE THINGS THAT WE COULD SEE.
SO THREE VERSUS FOUR YEAR TERMS, DISTRICTS VERSUS THAT LARGE REPRESENTATION, STAGGERED TERMS OF WHOLE BOARD ELECTIONS, ALIGNMENT WITH ELECTION CYCLES AND BOARD SIZE.
WE SORT OF LOOKED AT THESE THINGS AS THE SORT OF KEY THINGS THAT WE COULD BE LOOKING AT OR CHANGING THAT WOULD IMPACT THE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS IN RESIDENT REPRESENTATION.
SO I GUESS I'M GOING TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO GET THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.
ARE THESE THE RIGHT THINGS TO BE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT? SHOULD THESE ARE THE BE THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE USING WHEN WE MAKE THE DECISION TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE? IS THERE OTHER CRITERIA THAT ARE MISSED OR HAVE WE NAILED IT AND GOT IT PERFECT THE FIRST TIME? I'LL TURN OVER TO MS.. MADAM CHAIR TO FACILITATE THE CONVERSATION.
ALL RIGHT. AND I'M NOW THE FACILITATOR.
THE TWO QUESTIONS. I WONDER IF ACCOUNTABILITY IS ANOTHER THING WE THINK ABOUT.
SO JUST THE THOUGHT REPRESENTATION CERTAINLY VERY IMPORTANT.
BUT I WONDER IF ACCOUNTABILITY AS WELL.
[00:10:04]
SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM.ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE THE WAY THAT THE QUESTIONS ARE WORDED, BECAUSE IT SAYS, DOES THAT CHANGE? AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHANGE IS.
SO ARE YOU SAYING DOES A CHANGE IN THE TERMS IS THAT.
YES. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, DOES MAKING A CHANGE FROM 3 TO 4 YEAR TERMS THAT CHANGE, DOES THAT CHANGE IMPROVE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS? DOES THAT CHANGE, IMPROVE RESIDENT REPRESENTATION? AND IT MAY HAVE NO IMPACT.
BUT AS YOU GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM, DOES THAT SPECIFIC CHANGE IMPROVE OR MAKE WORSE? ONE OR THE OTHER OF BOTH.
LOOKING AT EACH OF THE EACH OF THE FIVE THINGS SORT OF SEPARATELY.
THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. DO WE FACTOR IN VOTER TURNOUT? WITH THESE TYPE OF CHANGES BECAUSE I MEAN.
IMAGINE THAT OFF YEARS THE VOTER TURNOUT WILL BE.
LOT LOWER THAN IT NORMALLY WOULD DURING A REGULAR ELECTION CYCLE.
AT SOME POINT, ALL YOU'RE VOTING ON WOULD PROBABLY BE JUST ONE DISTRICT.
SO ARE WE TAKING THAT TO ACCOUNT? JUST. JUST A THOUGHT.
WE ALL ANSWER THAT. SO AS WE GO THROUGH THE SCENARIOS HERE, THAT'S A GREAT POINT.
SO WE TRY TO PRESENT THAT DATA FOR YOU.
SO I THINK ALL OF THESE FIVE KEY FACTORS ARE IMPORTANT.
CHANGING THE THREE YEAR TERMS TO FOUR YEARS.
YOU'RE LEARNING THE ENTIRE YEAR AND THEN THAT SECOND YEAR YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE THAT FOOTING.
THEN IF YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU HAVE JUST ONE OTHER YEAR.
AND AS IT IS NOW, YOU KNOW, IF YOU RUN AGAIN, YOU KNOW THAT THAT'LL CHANGE WITH THE TIMES.
BUT IF YOU RUN AGAIN, YOU HAVE THAT ONE GOOD YEAR AFTER THAT.
SO HAVING THE STAGGERED TERMS WITH FOUR YEARS, IT REALLY SET US UP FOR SUCCESS.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING, LET ME STEP BACK.
AT THE END OF THIS MONTH OR BEGINNING OF MARCH, SO.
I THINK THE WAY YOU PHRASED THE QUESTION.
DOES THE CHANGE FROM 3 TO 4 YEAR TERMS IMPROVE OPERATIONS THAT MAKES.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY TALKING ABOUT THAT.
SO YOU WOULD PHRASE IT IN THAT WAY? THAT. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THESE ARE NOT THE ACTUAL SURVEY QUESTIONS.
WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL SURVEY QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WORKING WITH STAFF HERE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE RIGHT QUESTION TO GET AT THE INTENT WE'RE TRYING TO GET.
THESE ARE JUST THE CORE INTENTS.
THEY'RE NOT THE ACTUAL SURVEY QUESTIONS.
THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF A SCALE ON THOSE.
I CAN JUMP IN ON THE SURVEY, TOO.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT TO.
PROVIDING LIKE ASKING SURVEY QUESTIONS AROUND THESE SPECIFIC THINGS, AROUND CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS, RESIDENT REPRESENTATION, AND POTENTIALLY THE ALIGNMENT OF ELECTIONS WITH OTHER ELECTIONS.
AND SO OUR QUESTIONS WOULD BE AROUND WHETHER THOSE MOVES WOULD INCREASE.
IF THE QUESTIONS IMPROVE REPRESENTATION.
THEY'RE ALL RELATED TO REPRESENTATION, I THINK.
OH, SORRY, NO REPRESENTATION QUESTIONS, BUT SORRY.
WE'RE TAKING THOSE CONTRACTS AND THEN WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE TO VOTE TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION AROUND HOW THAT CHANGE WOULD IMPACT CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS AND. REPRESENTATION.
SO WE'RE NOT HAVING THAT. WE'RE NOT HAVING THEM LOOK AT MODELS.
WE'RE JUST SAYING, HOW WILL THESE CHANGES?
[00:15:05]
SO BACK GOING BACK TO WHAT MR. HARRIS WAS ASKING.THE FACTOR OF ALIGNMENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTION CYCLES.
I'M WONDERING HOW HOW ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT APPROACHING.
SO WE FOR EACH OF THESE, WE PROVIDE SORT OF LIKE A BRIEF EXPLANATION.
AND THEN WE ALSO ASK A SIMILAR QUESTION AROUND.
INCREASING THE LENGTH OF TERMS TO ALIGN WITH FEDERAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.
SO IN GENERAL, WHEN THERE'S LIKE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, LET'S TALK ABOUT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY HIGH VOTER, WHICH IS A POSITIVE THING.
RIGHT. AND YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE MORE PEOPLE VOTING IN A SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.
BUT I THINK THE WHAT ACTUALLY ENDS UP HAPPENING SOMETHING THAT.
AND THEY MAY JUST SAY, NO, I DON'T KNOW, I'LL JUST PICK THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, SO.
SO THERE'S THAT KIND OF FACTOR.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT, LIKE SOMEBODY MAY READ A QUESTION LIKE THAT AND THINK THAT, WELL, IF MORE PEOPLE TURN OUT THERE FOR MORE PEOPLE WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN BOARD ELECTION, WHICH ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, MAY NOT IN FACT BE THE CASE.
I'M JUST I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW.
ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE HESITANCY IS.
BUT BOTH TIMES WE'VE HAD THIS PRESENTATION.
THERE'S BEEN SORT OF A I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A NEED.
KIND OF A NEED TO SAY THAT THESE SCHOOL BOARD CHANGES DON'T AFFECT OR THERE'S NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT AND SUPERINTENDENT.
LONGEVITY. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE HESITATING TO SAY THAT FOR SOME REASON.
AND I WOULD LIKE CLARITY ON THAT.
I WOULD JUST SO I DID THOSE ANALYZES AND IT'S MOSTLY JUST LIKE A YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT GIVEN DATA.
RANDOMIZED VOTERS IN AN ELECTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT'S JUST BASICALLY A CONCLUSION THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE FROM OBSERVATIONAL DATA.
ADD ON THAT ONE CHART THAT KIND OF GOES THROUGH TO ME IS ALSO VERY TELLING.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST A SUPERINTENDENT, TOO, THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND.
AND WE DON'T HAVE DATA ON THIS.
BUT LOOKING AT SOME OF OUR TOP TALENT WITHIN THE SCHOOL DIVISION AND THE IMPACT THAT WHEN WE LOSE SOME OF OUR CHIEFS OR OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND THE IMPACT THAT THAT HAS IS IS INCREDIBLY SIGNIFICANT, ESPECIALLY EVERY TIME YOU HAVE SIX OR SEVEN BRAND NEW PEOPLE COMING IN WHO ARE HAVING TO LEARN THE PROCESS THAT ADDS EXTRA TIME AND STRESS ON STAFF, WHO THEN ARE HAVING TO SUPPORT ALL THESE NEW MEMBERS AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THINGS WORK AND. YEAH.
JUST FROM THE HUMAN PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IF SOMEONE IS IN THAT POSITION OF A SUPERINTENDENCY, WHICH I THINK THAT SUPERINTENDENCY AFFECTS THE CHIEFS, THAT IT AFFECTS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS SAY FROM THE BOARDROOM TO THE CLASSROOM, RIGHT.
I THINK WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S A HUMAN FACTOR THERE THAT IF SOMEBODY HAS.
IN THE AMOUNT OF BOARD MEMBERS WE HAVE.
RIGHT? WE HAVE A SUPERINTENDENT HAS TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH NINE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
[00:20:11]
AND THE WORK THAT THAT TAKES.AND THEN FOR THAT TO CHANGE OVER OR POTENTIALLY CHANGE OVER BY MORE THAN HALF EVERY THREE YEARS IS.
WANTED TO PUT THAT, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
I MEAN, I'M JUST I'M GOING TO KIND OF.
HEY, HOW I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT I THINK THERE'S A CORRELATION.
I HEAR EVERYTHING THAT YOU AND I.
I SAY THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS CHANGE.
AND WE'RE WE'RE GUARANTEED SUPER SATURDAY BECAUSE WE ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT.
SO WE HAVE HAD MORE RECENTLY A LITTLE BIT MORE TURNOVER THAN THAT.
BUT THE WAY I THINK ABOUT IT IS WE'RE IN THE D.C.
METRO AREA WHERE A MODERATELY SIZED SCHOOL DIVISION.
SO THIS IS A GOOD PLACE, I THINK, WHERE PEOPLE CAN DO THAT.
WELL, NOW AFTER THIS NOW AFTER THIS CHANGE, YOU KNOW, THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO LEAVE.
THAT CAN HAPPEN ON A THREE YEAR CYCLE.
IT CAN HAPPEN ON AN EVERY SINGLE YEAR CYCLE TO ME.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO IT'S EVERY YEAR WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHANGE.
SO THAT COULD BE EVERY YEAR THAT I PUT FORWARD.
SO THAT'S HOW I THINK ABOUT IT.
SO I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A CLEAR CORRELATION.
AND I WOULD SORT OF ON THAT SAME TOPIC.
SUGGESTS PEOPLE THINK BEYOND JUST ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
THINK ABOUT OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU'VE WORKED WITH.
YOU'VE BEEN IN A BIG ORGANIZATION.
AND THERE'S BEEN CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP AT THE TOP.
WHAT HAPPENS IS A RIPPLE EFFECT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION.
THIS IS SORT OF A COMMON THEME.
WITHOUT SAYING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT US.
WE'RE GOING WE'RE GOING TO RUN THROUGH SOME SCENARIOS NOW REAL QUICK.
JUST GET A SENSE ABOUT WHAT THESE LOOK LIKE.
AND WE MAY COME BACK AND REALIZE WE MISSED A FACTOR AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
SO THAT'S A BIG PART OF THIS, IS, SURE, THIS IS THE RIGHT SET.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE RELATIVELY QUICKLY.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST SCENARIO.
THIS IS MODEL A AND I DO APOLOGIZE WAS PREVIOUSLY UPLOADED.
THERE WERE A BUNCH OF CS, NOT THE SAME THAT HAS BEEN CORRECTED IN THE PRESENTATION I'VE GOT TONIGHT.
AND YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE RIGHT, YOU'LL SORT OF SEE THE ELECTIONS.
I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE MORE BUBBLES THAN THIS.
BUT WHEN I ACTUALLY SAT DOWN AND DID IT AND MAPPED OUT ALL OF THESE THINGS FOR ALL OF THESE YEARS, IT WAS IT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE SPREAD OUT THAN I FIGURED IT WAS.
JUST BECAUSE THE WAY THE GOVERNOR TERM IN VIRGINIA CYCLES THROUGH AND THAT SORT OF THING.
AND THEN THE PRESIDENTIAL AND AND THE HOUSE BEING EVERY OTHER YEAR YOU END UP WITH WITH WITH A LOT.
ALL RIGHT. SO IT WAS TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENTIAL YEARS DO PEAK BUT THEN THE GOVERNOR YEARS ARE ON A DIFFERENT CYCLE AND THAT'S ALSO BIG AND SO YOU END UP WITH A LOT OF THEN US SENATORS IN THE NEXT YEAR.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF BIG STUFF HAPPENING MOST YEARS.
AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL IN 27 2027, YOU SEE A LOT OF STUFF.
I WAS SURPRISED BY THAT. I JUST WANT TO SORT OF POINT THAT OUT.
AND SO THIS WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND WE DID A SAMPLE TRANSITION, RIGHT? SO THIS IS WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TRANSITION THIS WAY.
[00:25:01]
SO SO THE QUESTION WE WOULD ASK OURSELVES IS, DO WE THINK THAT THIS IMPROVES THE CONTINUITY AND DOES THIS IMPROVE VOTER REPRESENTATION? SO THAT WAS SORT OF THE KEY QUESTION AROUND THIS ONE.AND THE IDEA IS WE WOULD RUN THROUGH THESE OTHER SCENARIOS TOO.
SO HERE'S ANOTHER SCENARIO THAT WE COULD LOOK AT IN THIS SCENARIO.
ONE PER YEAR. THAT'S ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT THE MODEL.
AND AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS, IS IMPROVED VOTER REPRESENTATION TO IMPROVE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS.
SO THOSE TWO KEY QUESTIONS, WE'RE SORT OF CHANGING DIFFERENT PARAMETERS.
THAT'S CORRECT. IF IN THIS SCENARIO.
RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT THIS BECAUSE THAT'S A TRANSITION POINT, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF AWKWARDNESS ONE YEAR TRANSITIONING FROM.
THREE YEAR TERMS TO SOMETHING ELSE.
THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF AWKWARDNESS.
SO THIS IS THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY AWKWARD.
RIGHT. OTHER ONES ARE NOT SO BAD.
I SAID I WOULD VOLUNTEER AS A TRIBUTE.
BUT THIS ONE, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE IN CONTINUOUS CAMPAIGN.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A GOOD IDEA, JUST SAYING THIS IS WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE.
WE TRIED TO BE COMPREHENSIVE AND PUT OUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF MODELS TO THINK THROUGH SO WE COULD EVENTUALLY NARROW IT DOWN AS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD THEN GET FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY. JUST TO CLARIFY, A AND B HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THE SECOND YEAR, A YEAR AFTER THE 2020.
IT'S JUST IS IT EVERY DISTRICT OR IS IT ONE DISTRICT? SO A THREE PEOPLE, YEAH, IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THREE PEOPLE.
YOU ONLY GET ONE YEAR TERM DISTRICT B, YOU KNOW, VERSUS IN THIS EXAMPLE, IT CAN BE DECIDED ON WHO GETS THE NOT A, B, IT'S DECIDED ON WHO HAS THE MOST VOTES. IN 2024, WE'LL GET THE THREE YEAR TERM, SECOND GETS A TWO YEAR TERM, AND THEN THE LOWEST VOTE GETTER WOULD GET THE ONE YEAR TERM. AND THEN IT ROTATES FROM THAT.
YEAH. AND TO CLARIFY, THESE ARE NOT RECOMMENDATIONS AT ALL.
THESE ARE JUST COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF POSSIBLE SCENARIOS.
WITHOUT SAYING THAT ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER.
SO OPTION C, WE NOW SHIFTING TO FOUR YEAR TERMS. SO THAT'S AN INCREASE IN THE TERMS. NINE BOARD MEMBERS THAT REMAINS THE SAME.
ONE DISTRICT IS ELECTED EACH YEAR.
AND SO IN THIS SITUATION DISTRICT A DREW THE SHORT STRAW AND ITS MEMBERS WOULD HAVE TWO YEAR TERMS AND THEN THE DISTRICT B WOULD HAVE THREE YEAR TERMS FOR SELECTION AND DISTRICT C WOULD HAVE FOUR YEAR TERMS ON THE FIRST ELECTION, AND THEN EVERYBODY'S FOR AFTER THAT.
SO. NOBODY GETS ONE YEAR IN THAT SITUATION.
YEAH. ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT ON THIS ONE, THIS IS A MODEL THAT I THAT I TEND TO LIKE.
BUT ONE THING I DO HAVE TO POINT OUT BECAUSE WE SWITCHED TO FOUR YEAR TERMS, YOU GET IT.
YOU COULD GET IN A SITUATION DEPENDING ON WHO GETS THE SHORT STRAW, THE MIDDLE STAR OR WHATEVER THAT IN THIS SCENARIO, BECAUSE IT'S A FOUR YEAR TERM, THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALWAYS BE DOING IT DURING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THIS IS FOR YOUR TERMS. AND IN THIS SITUATION, WE'RE ALTERNATING ELECTIONS ON EVEN IN ODD YEARS.
SO WE'RE NOT DOING ELECTIONS EVERY YEAR.
WE DO ELECTIONS EVERY OTHER YEAR.
THIS MORE ALIGNS WITH THE US HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.
AND SO IN THAT SITUATION, EACH DISTRICT WOULD BE ELECTING ONE OR TWO PEOPLE EVERY CYCLE.
JUST ANOTHER OPTION. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE TURNOVER IS HIGHER IN THIS ONE.
YOUR TURNOVERS A LITTLE HIGHER IN THIS ONE VERSUS THE OTHER ONE.
THIS IS ALL FULL OF TRADE OFFS.
THIS IS A WHOLE BUNCH OF TRADE OFFS.
[00:30:03]
THE BOARD BY SIZE, BY BY TWO PEOPLE AND CREATING AN AT LARGE MEMBER IN THIS SCENARIO.AND IT'S FOUR YEAR TERMS. SO THE AT-LARGE MEMBER WOULD BE ELECTED ESSENTIALLY TO A FOUR YEAR TERM AND THEN EACH DISTRICT WOULD ELECT SOMEBODY TO.
BUT INITIALLY TO TWO PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DREW THE SHORT STRAW ONE YEAR AND THEN BE REELECTED AGAIN.
I SUPPOSE YOU'D HAVE THE LARGE MEMBER BE ONE, BUT SOMEBODY'S GOT TO BE FIRST.
OR YOU CORRELATE THEM. IT'S JUST ANOTHER IDEA, RIGHT? HE'S ALL JUST IDEAS.
MODEL F, THESE ARE NOT GRADES, BY THE WAY.
ON THE QUALITIES OF THE MODELS.
I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
THIS ONE IS TWO FROM EACH DISTRICT AND THREE AT-LARGE MEMBERS.
SO ANOTHER OPTION TO CONSIDER DIDN'T CHANGE THE SIZE.
AND THIS IS ONE WHERE THE QUESTION AGAIN, DOES THIS IMPROVE REPRESENTATION? WE START TO THINK ABOUT AT LARGE MEMBERS.
DOES AN AT LARGE MEMBER IMPROVE REPRESENTATION OF YOUR RESIDENTS OR DOES IT MAKE IT WORSE? THAT'S JUST SORT OF A KEY QUESTION ABOUT AT-LARGE MEMBERS.
THIS IS THE SAME AND THIS HAS GOT NINE AT-LARGE MEMBERS.
SO THAT'S IT. DISTRICTS ARE GONE.
AND YOU JUST COULD ELECT SAY, ON THE EVEN YEARS FOUR AND FIVE BACK AND FORTH, YOU JUST.
DO THAT. SO THAT'S JUST ANOTHER MODEL.
I THINK THAT'S ALL OF THEM, ISN'T IT? YEAH, THAT'S ALL THE MODELS.
AND THE IDEA WAS JUST OF THROW SOME IDEAS AROUND HERE.
AND HOPEFULLY AS WE WERE DOING THAT, YOU WERE SORT OF SEEING, OKAY, I CAN SEE HOW THIS HURTS.
CONTINUITY HELPS CONTINUITY, I CAN SEE HOW THIS HELPS REPRESENTATION, DECREASES REPRESENTATION, ETC.
SO YOU CAN SORT OF SEE HOW THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IMPACT ON THE CRITERIA SO THAT YOU SORT OF MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION GOING FORWARD OR RECOMMENDATION ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO GO TO DO THE CRITERIA. SO THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
IT WASN'T THAT ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER.
WE'RE NOT ASKING PEOPLE TO VOTE ON ANY OF THESE.
AND I GUESS WHAT? CIRCLE BACK AND ASK ME ALL THAT.
DOES THIS MAKE US WANT TO CHANGE OUR CRITERIA? WE THINK OF SOMETHING WE HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE.
NOW WE'VE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL SCENARIOS.
THANK YOU FOR GOING THROUGH THOSE.
IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO MODEL B.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY LIKE ONE ONE THING THAT I SAY, THIS IS THE MODEL THAT MOST INTERESTS ME, BUT I WOULD IF YOU TOOK IT TO A FOUR YEAR TERM, YOU COULD PUT THE OFF YEAR WITH NO ELECTION IN A PRESIDENTIAL.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CHALLENGING TO HAVE A SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.
IN TERMS OF PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO FOCUS ON THE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.
UM, YOU DEFINITELY HAD SOME VARIETY IN TERMS OF THERE WERE YEARS ON AND YEARS OFF, BUT THAT'S, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW WE WOULD CAPTURE THAT FEEDBACK, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
BUT I THINK IT'S IN THEORY, IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA.
MORE PEOPLE VOTE, BUT I REALLY THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO CAUSE PEOPLE TO LESS BE FOLLOWING.
WHAT'S THAT? YOU ACTUALLY TO THAT POINT COULD YOU PULL UP MODELS THE.
THIS ONE IS THE ONE THAT I POINTED OUT WHERE, YES, YOU WOULD HAVE ONE IN THIS PARTICULAR MODEL.
SO AND BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS WE HAVE IT MAPPED OUT, NOBODY WOULD BE UP FOR OFFICE IN 2025.
[00:35:06]
I JUST THINK IT'S ALREADY SUPER CONFUSING FOR ELECTORATE OF WHAT DISTRICT YOU VOTE IN AND TRYING TO SAY, OH, YOU'RE AN A OR B OR C, I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME VALUE OF ONLY HAVING ONE DISTRICT UP IN AN ELECTION YEAR AND BEING ABLE TO KIND OF FOCUS AND TARGET THAT AREA, BECAUSE I KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE DOING EARLY VOTING AND STUFF, IT'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE PEOPLE VOTE AND IT CAN BE A CHALLENGE.I MEAN, I'M THINKING MORE ABOUT YOUR QUESTION, MICHEL, AND MAYBE IT'S A PHENOMENON OF BALLOT FATIGUE OR ALSO JUST LIKE BANDWIDTH OR PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL THE CANDIDATES. PEOPLE STUDY ELECTIONS SO DEEPLY.
I BET THERE IS SOME RESEARCH OUT THERE IN THIS THAT WE COULD PROBABLY FIGURE OUT.
YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I DEFINITELY THINK THERE'S THERE'S INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE VOTERS A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL TURN ON AND THEY'LL JUST OFF OR THEY'LL JUST RANDOMLY GUESS.
SO I THINK IT'S YOU KNOW, WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE INFORMED VOTERS WHEN THEY'RE VOTING.
AND I AND I GUESS I WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO MRS..
DO I THINK. FOR ME, THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING ONE ONE PERSON IN EACH DISTRICT AT A TIME VERSUS JUST HAVING THE THREE SEPARATE IS THAT LIKE EVERYBODY GOES TO VOTE EVERY YEAR SO PEOPLE CAN VOTE.
PEOPLE WILL SHOW UP THINKING THAT THEY CAN VOTE FOR SCHOOL BOARD AND FIND OUT THAT THEY CAN'T.
PEOPLE MAY SHOW UP WANTING TO RUN FOR SCHOOL BOARD AND FIND OUT THAT THEY CAN'T.
SO AND ALSO IF THERE'S LIKE A BIG ISSUE THAT HAPPENS AND PEOPLE JUST COME OUT TO VOTE IN RESPONSE TO THAT ISSUE, THEN IT'S GOING TO AFFECT JUST ONE DISTRICT, THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS IN THAT DISTRICT, THAT PARTICULAR.
THERE'S KIND OF LIKE LITTLE BUILDING IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING.
I PERSONALLY THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT SPREAD OUT AMONG ALL THE DISTRICTS.
UM. BE ANY OF THE ONES WHERE THEY'RE ALL UP AT THE SAME TIME. SO I THINK.
SO. WHAT I WOULD JUMP IN AND SAY, JUST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I THINK THE LENGTH MATTERS.
I DO AGREE THAT FOUR YEAR TERM.
I AM ONE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES SIZE MATTERS AND I THINK SEVEN BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE.
BENEFICIAL. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST ME, I THINK, AGAIN, THINKING ABOUT THE BANDWIDTH OF.
HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, INTERACT WITH AND RELATE WITH AND WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, SEVEN PEOPLE VERSUS NINE. WE'RE A SMALL I MEAN.
WE HAVE MORE BOARD MEMBERS THAN SOME LARGER DIVISIONS.
SO I JUST THINK WE SHOULD MAYBE CONSIDER THAT.
YEAH. SO WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM US IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD? I THINK I GOT MOST OF WHAT I NEEDED.
BE SURE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT LANGUAGE IS THERE.
IN OUR SURVEY QUESTIONS, WE WILL MAKE SURE WE ADD THAT THAT WAS THE ONE KEY ADDITION.
I THINK I HEARD THAT WE WERE NOT INCLUDING IN THE SURVEY, I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE WAS.
BELIEFS ABOUT VARIOUS PARAMETERS WITHIN THAT AND WHICH ONE IS IS IS IMPORTANT.
SO I THINK THAT WAS THE KEY TAKEAWAY.
SO I THINK WE'VE GOT ENOUGH TO CREATE THE SURVEY NOW.
BECAUSE. RIGHT. SO THE BECAUSE I THINK THE OTHER QUESTIONS HERE GO BACK HERE.
RIGHT. IS IT GOOD TO ALIGN WITH STATE OR FEDERAL ELECTIONS, OR IS IT BAD TO ALIGN WITH FEDERAL ELECTIONS? VOTER FATIGUE VERSUS TURNOUT? WHICH IS WHICH IS BETTER? RIGHT. SO WE SORT OF WEIGHTED THOSE TWO CONCEPTS.
[00:40:02]
WE WAITED THREE OR FOUR YEAR TERMS. WE TALKED ABOUT DISTRICT VERSUS AT-LARGE REPRESENTATION.WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK VERY MUCH ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WERE IMPROVED REPRESENTATION, SAY, BUT WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT MAY BE A NECESSARY THING TO REDUCE ACROSS THE BOARD, RIGHT BOARD SIZE, ETC..
SO I THINK WE HAVE MOST OF THE KEY QUESTIONS WE.
AND THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.
CONCURRENTLY WITH THOSE THINGS, THE PUBLIC CAN COME IN AND SPEAK THEIR OPINIONS.
WE'LL FOLLOW THAT IMMEDIATELY WITH A WITH ANOTHER WORK SESSION.
WE WILL COME UP WITH WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT SCENARIO.
SO WE'LL BAKE UP SOME MORE SCENARIOS BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD FOR THAT FIRST NIGHT.
AND WE'LL PRESENT YOU WITH A BUNCH MORE SCENARIOS.
WE CAN DO SOME MORE ON THE FLY AT THAT WORK SESSION.
THIS IS SORT OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT.
ME, PERSONALLY, I WAS RUNNING.
I WOULD PROBABLY WANT. BIG ELECTION.
I'M NOT GOING TO LAY MY WEIGHT ON.
FATIGUE. I'M GOING TO WEIGH IN ON HOW MANY PEOPLE I CAN GET.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COMING TO THE POLLS THAT DAY THAT I CAN.
HOPEFULLY PULL THEM ON MY SIDE.
SO I WOULD PREFER. AND THEN ALSO TO SEVEN.
DO THAT WITHOUT UPSETTING SOMEONE.
WE HAD EVERYONE THAT WANTED TO RUN AGAIN.
BUT. BUT I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU HOW.
HOW? YEAH, SO I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
I'M SAYING SO SOMEONE WON'T BE SUPPORTIVE.
BUT TO. ONE TIME ONLY, RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN, WE ALREADY HAVE TO RUN AGAINST EACH OTHER.
THE WAY IT'S SET UP, RIGHT? YOU'RE. YOU HAVE FEWER SLOTS TO GO IN.
YEAH, I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO, YOU KNOW, RUNNING DURING A FEDERAL OR STATE.
I, I THINK I AGREE WITH MR. BAILEY. I THINK.
AND IT'S ALSO BECAUSE OF THIS COMMUNITY.
I LIKE KNOWING THE PEOPLE OF ALEXANDRIA.
THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW.
THEY'RE NOT PROBABLY JUST GOING TO BE SORT OF, YOU KNOW.
NOT CARING BECAUSE IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
I FEEL LIKE IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY, LIKE PEOPLE WHO PAY ATTENTION TO JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.
SO I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WORRY ABOUT THAT SO MUCH.
YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE IF WE WERE A DIFFERENT COMMUNITY, MAYBE.
BUT HERE, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH BEING, YOU KNOW, NOT PAID ATTENTION TO.
UM. SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS.
BUT ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT STEPS ARE UP.
SO THE STAKEHOLDER SURVEY WE'RE LOOKING AT LATE THIS MONTH OR EARLY MARCH, AND THEN WE EXPECT A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 30TH AND ANOTHER WORK SESSION, MARCH 30TH.
YES. YOU ARE BACK WITH POLICY B.
[2. BDDH-R: Public Participation at School Board Meetings]
[00:45:05]
ALL RIGHTY. SO, THANK YOU, MADAM.AND IN THIS SITUATION, FOR A POLICY PROCESS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY IT 100 TIMES, THAT THERE'S A REVISION TEAM WHICH LOOKS AT THE POLICY AND REVISES IT IN THIS SITUATION. IT'S A BOARD POLICY, IT'S A REVISION TEAM.
IS THE BOARD RIGHT? YOU ARE THE REVISION TEAM BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR POLICY, NOT A STAFF POLICY.
SO WE RAN IT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
SUBCOMMITTEE HAD SOME THOUGHTS AND SOME CONVERSATIONS AND WE DECIDED TO BRING IT UP TO THE FULL BOARD TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVES BECAUSE IT WAS NOT JUST REALLY OBVIOUS ON WHAT WE SHOULD DO. AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS HERE.
SO THIS IS VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS, JUST BEGINNING THE REVISIONS.
AND SO THIS IS A NORMAL PROCEDURE ALL POLICIES GO THROUGH.
THIS IS JUST BECAUSE IT'S A BOARD POLICY.
ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'RE ALL GETTING YOUR PERSPECTIVES AND WE'LL TAKE THE TAKE THIS PERSPECTIVE AND OUR ROLL INTO THE DRAFTS AND THEN IT RUNS THROUGH THE REGULAR PROCESS FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. ALL RIGHT.
THERE WE GO. SO YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH ALL MY SLIDES? JUST A QUICK REMINDER.
WE'RE REALLY BEING SURE THESE REVISIONS AND THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE YOU'RE AUTHORING IT REALLY SUPPORTING STRATEGIC PLAN, REALLY SUPPORTING EQUITY, REALLY SUPPORTING SYSTEMIC ALIGNMENT. SO THESE QUESTIONS, ARE YOU REALLY DESIGNING A POLICY THAT DOES THOSE THINGS AT THE DESIGN PHASE RIGHT NOW AND DOES IT SUPPORT EQUITY? AND I'M NOT GOING TO LET IT NOT ALIGN WITH CODE VIRGINIA.
SO IN BD, WHICH IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT BOARD MEETINGS AND THERE'S A POLICY AND A RAG, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF ELEMENTS HERE NOTIFICATIONS, GOVERNANCE OVER WRITTEN VERSUS ELECTRONIC INPUT PROCESSES FOR THE SPEAKERS AND SIGN UP AND THE NUMBER OF THE SPEAKERS AND THE ORDER OF THE SPEAKERS AND HOW THEY'RE GROUPED AND AGENDA VERSUS NON AGENDA ITEMS AND HOW YOU ADDRESS THE BOARD AND DECORUM AND BOARD RESPONSES AND VARIATIONS AND WORK SESSIONS AND MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS AND TIME LIMITATIONS AND INAPPROPRIATE TOPICS.
IT COVERS ALL OF THIS STUFF, ESSENTIALLY IDEAL SPEAKERS OF BOARD MEETINGS.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT COVERS ALL OF THAT.
GROUPING ORDER RESPONSES, VARIATIONS ON TYPES, TIME LIMITS AND TRANSLATIONS.
WE FEEL THAT MOST OF THE REST OF IT IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY OKAY.
AND SO WHAT I'VE GOT IS THREE SLIDES WITH A BIG TABLE THAT COMPARES ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THESE THINGS WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALEXANDRIA, ARLINGTON AND FAIRFAX AND ALL THESE BASIC PARAMETERS.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT SURROUNDING DIVISIONS ARE DOING RELATING TO THESE TOPICS.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THREE TABLES SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THOSE DATA SETS AND THEY'RE GOING TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE FIRST TABLE AND YOU CAN START TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, WELL, AND THIS THING, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO, ETC., AND JUST WORK OUR WAY THROUGH.
ALL RIGHT. AND THEN I'LL USE THAT TO DRAFT THE NEXT VERSION OF THE POLICY.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS. SO HERE'S THE FIRST ONE.
SIGN UP DEADLINES IS THE FIRST TOPIC RIGHT NOW FOR VIRTUAL AND IN-PERSON.
ARLINGTON IS 4:00 THE DAY BEFORE FOR VIRTUAL IN PERSON, AND THEY HAVE A 30 MINUTE WINDOW BETWEEN 15 AND 45 MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SIGN UP AHEAD OF TIME OR IN PERSON.
FAIRFAX 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND THERE IS NO IN-PERSON OPTION.
THAT'S IT. NO, YOU CAN'T SET UP ON THE DAY OF 48 AND THEN THAT'S IT.
AND THEY CUT IT OFF AT THAT POINT.
YES. I WAS SURPRISED BY SOME OF THIS, BY THE WAY.
I WAS LIKE, REALLY? OH, THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING.
AND IT'S ALSO INTERESTING HOW DIFFERENT THE DIVISIONS WERE.
ALL RIGHT. YOUR TIME FOR SPEAKER IS MADAM CHAIR'S DECISION.
SHE GETS TO SAY WHATEVER SHE WANTS TO.
THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE 2 MINUTES IN POLICY.
YIELDING TIME IS PROHIBITED ACROSS ALL ORGANIZATIONS.
THANK GOODNESS. A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.
YOUR POLICY SAYS IT'S THE CHAIR'S DECISION.
ARLINGTON HAS A TOTAL OF 30 SPEAKERS.
20 OF THOSE CAN BE SET UP A DAY AHEAD OF TIME.
TEN ARE RESERVED FOR THE DAY OF SIGN UP.
IF EITHER ONE OF THOSE EXCEEDS THE NUMBERS, THERE'S A LOTTERY PROCESS AND THERE'S ONE HOUR TOTAL.
FAIRFAX HAS 16 TOTAL SPEAKERS, THREE SPOTS RESERVED FOR STUDENTS.
[00:50:02]
THREE SPOTS FOR RECORDED VIDEO.SO YOU CAN PRE RECORD A VIDEO THAT IS PLAYED.
AND THEN THERE'S A LOTTERY WITH A TEN PERSON WAIT LIST OF SUCCEEDED.
SO THERE'S BECOMES A WAITING LIST.
I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IT'S 48 HOURS AHEAD OF TIME.
THAT MEANS THAT 24 HOURS SOMEBODY CANCELED WILL PULL YOU OFF THE WAITING LIST AND YOU CAN GO.
ALTHOUGH I DID CALL, LEFT A VOICEMAIL FOR THEIR BOARD CLERK FOR CLARITY, AND I DIDN'T HEAR BACK.
SO THERE'S SOME SOME STUFF I COULDN'T CLARIFY AROUND FAIRFAX'S PROCESS.
SO FREQUENCY, YOU HAVE NO LIMITATIONS ON THE FREQUENCY, BUT IN PRACTICE, IT'S ONCE PER MEETING.
NEXT. SO THAT WAS SORT OF THE SIGNUP PROCESS AND THE SPEAKER PROCESS.
THIS SORT OF GETS TO TRANSLATIONS AND ACCOMMODATIONS AND THAT SORT OF STUFF.
SO EXTRA TIME FOR TRANSLATIONS.
YOUR POLICY SAYS IT'S CHER'S DECISION.
BY THE WAY, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE EQUITY AUDIT TEAM FELT THAT THE BOARD SHOULD REMEMBER THAT SOME LANGUAGES TAKE MORE WORDS TO MAKE THE POINT, AND YOU MAY NEED MORE THAN TWO THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME TO MAKE YOUR POINT.
SPEAKING, SAY SPANISH, THEN SAYING THE SAME CONTENT IN ENGLISH.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ARABIC, BUT SOME LANGUAGES TAKE MORE, SIMPLY TAKE MORE WORDS.
AND SO BE AWARE OF THAT FROM AN EQUITY LENS.
TALK ABOUT INTERPRETER INTERPRETERS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE LIKE SOMEBODY SIGNING FOR YOU, SIGN LANGUAGE, THAT SORT OF THING.
ARLINGTON SAYS YES, REQUIRE ADVANCE NOTICE.
HOWEVER, YOU WILL DO IT IF THEY ASK FOR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE.
APS POLICY SAYS YES, THEY DO WHAT THEY REQUIRE OR REQUEST ADVANCE NOTICE.
FAIRFAX SAYS YES, AND IT'S REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION.
SO THEY HAVE THAT 48 HOURS BUILT RIGHT INTO THAT PROCESS.
WRITTEN COPIES? YES. AND YOUR POLICY SAYS THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT 1300 COPIES.
ALTHOUGH IN PRACTICE, I KNOW THAT YOU ACCEPT DIGITAL VERSIONS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR REGULATION SAYS.
APPS AND FAIRFAX SAY DIGITAL SUBMISSIONS.
SO A SITUATION WHERE YOUR POLICY IS OUTDATED.
OBVIOUSLY YOU DO ACCEPT DIGITAL SUBMISSIONS, BUT THE REGULATION IS SIMPLY OUTDATED.
SO A LOT OF THIS IS JUST AN OUTDATED REG.
SO THAT'S ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF.
AND SO I'M GOING TO WIND IT BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE.
OR NOT THAT SLIDE, THAT SLIDE AND SORT OF GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE.
AND THE BASIC QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO AROUND THIS TOPIC? RIGHT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE.
I WILL SAY FROM A SIGN UP DEADLINES, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO ARTICULATE THIS CORRECTLY FROM THE CLERK OBSERVING THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF LOGISTICS AROUND DEALING WITH SPEAKERS.
IT'S VERY TIME CONSUMING, GETTING THEM SET UP IF THEY'RE VIRTUAL, GETTING THEM ALL SET UP, GETTING THEM TO LENGTHS, BE SURE THAT IT ALL WORKS CORRECTLY, ALL THE RULES GETTING THE SPEAKER LIST SET UP IN ESB.
THERE'S JUST A LOT OF LOGISTICAL OVERHEAD FOR THE SPEAKERS.
AND SO THE BOARD CLERK WENT SO FAR AS TO AS TO BE SURE.
THEY'RE SAYING BE SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT AND SORT OF SAYING MAYBE EVEN UP TO THE POINT OF STARTING IN PERSON IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THERE'S JUST A LOT OF LOGISTICS. AND ON THE DAY OF THE BOARD MEETINGS, THEY'RE RUNNING AROUND LIKE CRAZY DOING BOATLOADS OF STUFF.
AND THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO IS HAVE SOME SPEAKER WHO WANTS TO SPEAK, BUT WE DIDN'T CHECK AN EMAIL OR WHATEVER ELSE BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OTHER THINGS GOING ON AND THE PERSON DOESN'T KNOW THAT THEY CAN SPEAK.
RIGHT. SO THE BORDER CLERK WANTED YOU TO BE SURE THAT YOU'RE VERY AWARE OF THAT FACT.
THAT WAS THE REQUEST THAT PRECIPITATED THE CHANGE, THIS POLICY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT CAME UP IN OUR POLICY COMMITTEE THAT REALLY KIND OF LED TO US SAYING WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THIS MORE OF A BOARD LEVEL WORKSHOP OR WORK SESSION CONVERSATION.
[00:55:01]
I HAVE I HAVE CONSISTENTLY KIND OF PUSHED BACK ON THE NOON DAY BEFORE FOR VIRTUAL OR IN-PERSON.BUT MY MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT.
AND WHILE I REALIZE THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT PEOPLE IN ALEXANDER CAN COMMUNICATE WITH US, IT IS STILL YOU KNOW, IT IS, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY COMING IN FRONT OF A BOARD LIVE, EITHER VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM OR IN PERSON IS A VERY EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY TOOL.
AND SO, YOU KNOW WHAT I WANTED I'M INTERESTED IN ARLINGTON'S MODEL AT LEAST PUSHING IT BACK TO GIVE OUR CLERKS THE TIME THAT THEY NEED TO PREP. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT NOON IS FAIR.
MS.. GREENE. SUSAN, CAN YOU TELL US AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
HAPPY CLARK APPRECIATION WEEK.
WE DO NOT HAVE PEOPLE WHO SIGN UP ONLINE AS OFTEN AFTER THAT DEADLINE.
SO THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP EVEN AFTER THE DEADLINE OF THE DAY BEFORE.
BUT WE DON'T WANT ELECTRONIC PARTICIPANTS TO SIGN UP THE DAY OF THE MEETING.
IT'S ONLY FOR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.
OK GREAT, BUT YOU ALWAYS INSTRUCT THEM THAT THEY CAN COME IN PERSON.
WE ALSO GIVE THEM THE ALTERNATIVE OF ACCEPTING WRITTEN COMMENTS TO POST.
MANY PEOPLE DO DO THAT AS WELL.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I'LL HOP IN AND SAY.
I IN SEASON, YOU CAN SAY IF I'M WRONG, BUT I'M OFTEN MADE AWARE OF WHEN PEOPLE ASK TO COME IN AFTER THE DEADLINE.
AND I HAVE OFTEN, YOU KNOW, ALLOWED PEOPLE TO DO THAT.
BUT SOMETIMES WHEN PEOPLE DO, YOU KNOW, SUSAN WILL.
SO I SAY THAT TO SAY, THOUGH, WE HAVE THE NOON DAY BEFORE THE MEETING.
WHEN PEOPLE HAVE COME FORWARD BECAUSE THEY'VE SAID THEY MISSED IT FOR WHATEVER REASON.
I HAVE OFTEN SAID, OKAY, COME AND SPEAK.
AND SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO BE EXPLICIT ABOUT IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEN IT'S A IT'S A FAIRNESS ISSUE OF SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, I REALLY WANT TO SPEAK AND NOT IN.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN JUST LOOKING AT THE WEBSITE SAYING, OH, I MISSED THE NOON DEADLINE.
I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO ASK BECAUSE I'M FOLLOWING THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT FOR ME.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A YOU'RE PUSHING BACK THE NOON TO 4:00 OR YOU'RE SAYING NOON AND YOU CAN STILL APPLY, I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU A SLOT. AFTER THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT METHOD TO DO IT WOULD BE, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO EXPLICITLY SAY THAT.
THERE COULD BE SOME WIGGLE ROOM FOR PEOPLE COMING IN AFTER THE DEADLINE.
I MEAN, SO COULD IT BE LANGUAGE THAT STATES, YOU KNOW.
BECAUSE I THINK I THINK I DO BELIEVE THAT SOME DISCRETION HAS TO BE USED.
YOU KNOW. THERE COULD BE TIMES WHERE IT JUST DOESN'T LIKE BEHOOVE US TO ADD MORE OR ADD MORE TO
[01:00:08]
THE MEETING. SO I'M JUST WONDERING WITH WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IF IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO SAY, YOU KNOW, NOON DAY BEFORE THE MEETING, YOU KNOW.REQUESTS. AFTER THAT TIME CAN BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION.
AND IT'S USUALLY AN AGENDA ITEM WHERE THEY'RE THE THEIR VOICE.
AND IN THAT AGENDA ITEM WOULD BE IMPORTANT, SUCH AS THE PRESIDENT OF EAA, OR WE HAD SOMEONE FROM THE CITY WHO SPOKE ON A SPECIFIC MATTER.
WE ARE GENERALLY NOT ADDING JUST ANYONE WHO SIGNS UP LATE.
SO I JUST DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S USUALLY BEEN FOR A GOOD REASON.
I THINK THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE IS WHEN AN AGENDA ITEM GETS POSTED LATE.
RIGHT. THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE.
AND LETTING ONE PERSON MAKE A DECISION PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BIAS.
WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT.
CREATING THAT IN THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM, SO TO SPEAK, THAT POINT FROM THE EQUITY.
I KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THINGS GETTING POSTED LATE.
IS THERE A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, DO A BETTER JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THINGS POST ON TIME SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE POLICY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT? I KNOW THINGS HAPPEN AND OCCASIONALLY THINGS DO GET POSTED LATE, BUT.
I MEAN. YEAH, I THINK SOMETIMES THINGS JUST MIGHT GET POSTED LATE.
ONE THING TO ALWAYS REMEMBER, TOO, IS THAT.
THE THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENT IS POSTING THE AGENDA.
SO NOT NECESSARILY THE ITEMS. SO THAT IS A HOWEVER, POSTING THE THE MATERIALS IS ABSOLUTELY A GOOD PRACTICE.
BUT I THINK SOMETIMES THINGS ARE GOING TO BE POSTED LIKE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I THINK WITH REGARDS TO THE AGENDA, OF COURSE, THAT NEEDS TO BE POSTED.
BUT SOMETIMES THEY'VE BEEN DOCUMENTS LATELY WHERE WE'RE WORKING WITH LIKE HANOVER OR SOMEONE OUTSIDE THAT HAS TO COME TO STAFF AND THEN STAFF HAS TO RESPOND AND PROVIDE LIKE THE STAFFING NOTES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THERE ARE SOMETIMES THOSE DEADLINES ARE SO SHORT ON TOP OF THE DAILY ACTIVITIES THAT HAPPEN.
IT IS A TEACHABLE MOMENT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THE AGENDA AND THE ITEMS WERE POSTED THE SAME TIME.
MR. AL NEWBY. SO JUST TO JUST TO AFFIRM THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I'M READING HERE.
THAT'S CORRECT. THE ONLY DEADLINE IS IN PRACTICE IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT VIRTUALLY.
BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS SHOW UP TO SPEAK IN PERSON.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONLY PRACTICAL DEADLINE IN THIS SITUATION.
[01:05:03]
I SEE. YEAH.I PERSONALLY WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR TO BE THE LANGUAGE.
THAT'S FINE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND SUGGESTION THERE.
THANK YOU. SO ANYBODY IN REGARD TO THAT, YOU KNOW.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? I MEAN, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT EQUAL OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT EQUITY? BECAUSE NOW I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, RIGHT.
RIGHT. SO THEY WOULD SAY THAT.
GIVING AN INDIVIDUAL THE DECISION.
THE ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION GIVES THAT PERSON THE POWER TO MAKE A DECISION THAT'S NOT EQUITABLE.
AND SO IT'S THE IT'S SORT OF THE LUCK OF THE DRAW ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL.
AND SO NOT THAT YOU, MADAM CHAIR, WOULD DO THAT, BUT YOU'RE GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT DO THAT, THE ABILITY TO DO THAT AND SAY YES TO ONE GROUP AND A PERSON AND NO TO ANOTHER PERSON FOR WHATEVER REASONS.
THAT YOU'RE OPENING THAT DOOR, THAT YOU'D BE OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT THAT'S A DOOR THAT YOU'RE OPENING, KNOWINGLY OPENING THAT DOOR.
SO THEN WOULD IT BE BETTER TO.
ADD IN LANGUAGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF TIMELINE, LIKE IF ITEMS AREN'T POSTED BY.
YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE WANT TO SAY? 24 HOURS? I DON'T KNOW. 48 HOURS? IS THAT MEAN? I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU HOW YOU DO THAT.
I MEAN, I AM ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH SAYING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR.
I MEAN, WE AS AN ELECTED BODY OF CHOSEN, YOU KNOW, WHO WE WANT TO SERVE AS OUR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
AND WE HAVE EMPOWERED THEM TO HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD.
HAVE TOO MANY SPEAKERS LINED UP OR SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IF I LIKE THE APPROACH, I THINK IF WE LAY OUT THE THE GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR DISCRETION IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I MEAN, I'M IN THE SENSE TO SAY THAT DISCRETION DOES OPEN DOOR FOR BIAS.
AND I'D HAD THE SAME CONSIDERATION WITH A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.
SO I THINK WE CAN'T PUT LANGUAGE INTO IT THAT WOULD MAKE IT LESS.
SO I HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF JUST TO LAY OUT THE CRITERIA.
ALL RIGHT. SO FOR LIKE, THERE'S A REASONABLE REASON WHY IT HAPPENED.
AGENDA ITEMS WERE NOT BEING POSTED OR WHATEVER ELSE.
IF THE CHAIR COULD GRANT, COULD APPEAL, YOU COULD APPEAL THE DECISION TO THE CHAIR.
AND IF YOU HAVE REASONABLE, VALID, REASONABLE, WHY IT WAS DELAYED.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE AGENDA ITEM WASN'T POSTED.
WHATEVER ELSE, I COULDN'T MY COMPUTER WASN'T WORKING, WHATEVER THOSE THINGS ARE.
CHAIR CAN GRANT AN EXCEPTION FOR YOU THAT.
IF YOUR EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY WAS NOT JUST RANDOM, IT'S YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A REASON.
YEAH. I JUST THINK HAVING THE THE SOLE UNILATERAL DECISION JUST CAUSES PROBLEMS. RIGHT. SO THAT'S A GOOD SOLUTION.
OKAY. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WAS A LONG TIME ON THAT ONE.
HOPEFULLY THE NEXT ONE. MADAME CHAIRS OVER THERE GOING, OH, MATTHEW, BUDDY, FASTER ON THE NEXT ONE.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE SIGN UP? I'M SORRY. IN PERSON.
SHE ASKED FOR CLOTHES A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, OR IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH CLOSING A LITTLE BIT SOONER? I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO CLOSE IT A LITTLE BIT SOONER.
EVEN IF WE DID LIKE THE KIND OF LIKE ARLINGTON.
IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL LIKE, MEETING DAY IS CRAZY.
YEAH. IT'S I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, LIKE.
THE WORLD BEHIND THE WALLS ON MEETING DAY AND THE NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS THAT GO BACK AND FORTH, THE NUMBER OF JUST RUNNING OUT TO GET STUFF, YOU KNOW, COLLECTING THINGS, MAKING SURE SOMEBODY HAS ACCESS AND SOMEBODY HAS WISE.
[01:10:06]
SO I THINK TO HAVE, YOU KNOW.THEN HAVE THE CLERKS HAVE TO DEAL WITH SIGN UPS RIGHT UP TO THE MEETING.
MS.. GREENE. I'D HAVE TO AGREE MEETING DAY IS IS SO CRAZY.
SO I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH HAVING A TIME THAT WE STOP.
BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON ARLINGTON'S 15 TO 45.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
SURE. LET ME JUST PICK ONE NUMBER.
SO FOR US, IT WOULD BE BETWEEN 545 AND 615.
YOU CAN SHOW UP TO SIGN UP FOR IN PERSON, BUT AFTER SIX.
SO WHY DON'T WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY IT CUTS OFF 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING? SO THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS, BECAUSE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE BOARD CLERK ABOUT IT, THERE'S.
THERE'S FORMS. SO IF YOU WANT TO BE A SPEAKER, YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A FORM.
YOU JUST HAND YOUR FORM IN AND ALL FORMS HAVE TO BE BE DELIVERED 15 MINUTES AHEAD OF TIME.
SO THEY'VE GOT THE STACK AND THEN THEY CAN DO SORTING WITH IT.
SO YOU'RE NEVER MEETING WITH THEM.
THEY'RE NOT TAKING INFORMATION FROM YOU.
ESSENTIALLY. THERE'S NO OVERHEAD ON THE CLERK AT ALL.
SO IT'S NOT HAVING TO SIGN UP ANYTHING.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY EFFICIENT PROCESS.
THAT'S ONE GOOD QUESTION THAT HAS COME UP IS SHOULD IF WE'RE ADDING SPEAKERS, SHOULD IT BE FOCUSED ON AGENDA ITEMS? I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.
WE DON'T RESPOND TO THEM ANYWAY.
SO I MEAN, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT'S GOING ON THAT DAY AND I THINK THAT KIND OF NARROWS THE FOCUS A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE THEM SPEAKING ON JUST WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. POTENTIALLY.
I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE TO DISAGREE.
JUST WANT TO URGE PEOPLE TO COME AND SPEAK.
AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A PROBLEM.
SO THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, BACK TO THE KIND OF SIGNUP DEADLINE.
I JUST WHATEVER IT IS, AS LONG AS IT'S CLEAR ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE FIRST ONE.
IN FACT, YOUR POLICY IS SILENT.
TYPICALLY 3 MINUTES IS JUST WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT NOW.
AND IT DOES SAY TYPICALLY THREE ABOUT.
AND ALEXANDER I MEAN ARLINGTON AND FAIRFAX ARE AT TWO.
IS THERE ANY DESIRE TO CHANGE THE LIMIT OF TIME FROM TO SHORTEN IT SO OR INCREASE IT.
IF FOR SOME REASON WE DID HAVE 50 PEOPLE COME TO SIGN UP THEN SAYING, OKAY, NOW YOU ONLY HAVE 2 MINUTES, WHICH IS PRACTICE IN OTHER ELECTED BODIES, WE WOULDN'T BE DOING SOMETHING NEW OR DIFFERENT.
JUST GIVES US THAT FLEXIBILITY TO MAINTAIN SOME SORT OF TIME SCHEDULE.
I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT AGAIN, CAN WE HAVE SOME CLEAR CUT GUIDELINES ON WHEN THAT DISCRETION IS? I. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
SORRY. SORRY. SOME SORT OF MAYBE A TOTAL LIMIT.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, ARLINGTON HAS AN HOUR TOTAL.
[01:15:04]
AND SO IF YOU'VE GOT 20 PEOPLE, YOU'VE GOT 30 PEOPLE, THEN THE CHAIR IS GOING TO DECREASE THAT TO 2 MINUTES TO KEEP IT UNDER AN HOUR OR WHATEVER THAT CAP IS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE.THANK YOU. SO WHAT'S THE CAP? I SENSE SOME HESITATION AROUND AN HOUR.
I MEAN, I YOU KNOW, AND I AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT I DO THINK ABOUT BOATS THAT WE'VE HAD, LIKE THE HIGH SCHOOL.
OR THINGS LIKE THAT I WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT.
SO. I THINK AN HOURS REASON WE'VE RARELY GONE THAT LONG.
SO IF WE YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE IF NOT, THEN MAYBE WHEN WE DO HAVE THE VOTES LIKE THAT, WE MIGHT.
SO JUST TO THROW IN SOMETHING HERE, WE DO HAVE.
GENERAL REGULAR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
AND SO WE CAN TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY.
AND THIS IS I HAVE A POINT LATER TO MAKE ABOUT RESPONDING.
AND SO IF WE WANTED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT PRACTICE FOR THOSE INSTANCES WHEN WE WANT TO HEAR MORE VOICES ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE, I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE OURSELVES THE FREEDOM TO HAVE THAT. AND I THINK WE'RE.
WE. YEAH. WE'VE NEVER GONE AN HOUR.
IN 3 MINUTES IS GOOD. BUT, MATT, CAN YOU CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR ME? NO. WE TOOK A VOTE, AND DR.
REEVE AND MADAM CHAIR HELP ME AS WELL.
WE TOOK A VOTE ON THIS WITH OUR OLD BOARD THAT KNOCKED OUT ORGANIZATIONS FROM SPEAKING FROM 5 MINUTES DOWN TO 3 MINUTES, JUST AS AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD DO.
AND WE SPECIFICALLY THEN VOTED ON THE THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT, NOT NOT CHAIR'S DISCRETION.
WE VOTED ON IT BEING 3 MINUTES ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND THAT DID NOT MAKE IT INTO YOUR POLICY OR REGULATION.
I BELIEVE YOU. SO THIS WAS NOT PROBABLY BEFORE MY TENURE.
I REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT I REMEMBER HAVING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
ACTUALLY MAKING ANY POLICY CHANGES.
BUT I DO REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION.
SO IS THE FIVE MINUTE STILL IN THERE FOR ORGANIZATIONS? NO. SO THAT FIVE MINUTE THING WAS NEVER AN EXCUSE.
AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVER IN POLICY.
I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE JUST.
SO LIKE IF EAA IF EAA WAS SPEAKING, THEY WOULD GET 5 MINUTES OR.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD THINK ONE OF OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIRS SPOKE, WE WOULD GET 5 MINUTES.
SO THAT'S NEVER, I DON'T THINK, BEEN CODIFIED IN POLICY.
BECAUSE IT HAS IT AND THAT WAS SOMETHING I WAS GOING TO BRING UP.
SO IN THE PAST IT ACTUALLY WAS WRITTEN INTO OUR POLICY THAT WE HAVE THESE TWO SEPARATE GROUPS.
BUT WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT THIS WAY, BUT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ACTUAL.
SO BUT I WONDER THEN I WONDER THEN IF WE.
WHAT A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION IS.
OR WE JUST STICK TO THE 3 MINUTES.
YEAH. SO I WILL SAY, HAVING BEEN ON A BOARD WHERE WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENTS LAST 2 HOURS, HOUR AND A HALF ON A REGULAR BASIS, I KNOW YOUR PREVIOUS BOARD, YOU ALSO WERE SERVING DURING A VERY DIFFERENT PERIOD OF TIME.
WE'RE STARTING TO SEE MORE PEOPLE COME BACK TO PRESENT IN PERSON, WHICH IS GREAT.
[01:20:01]
AND WE'VE HAD MEETINGS THAT HAVE GONE TO 1 A.M.OR 2 A.M. ON A REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC THAT WE NEEDED TO GET INTO.
I KNOW I HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PREVIOUS BOARD.
THERE WAS NOT A DESIRE OR WILL TO LIMIT SPEAKERS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LIMIT SPEAKERS.
AT THE SAME TIME, I WAS MORE UNDER THE CAMP OF KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT THINK ARLINGTON DOES OF A ONE HOUR TOTAL OR HAVING SOME LIMITATIONS ON TERMS OF ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE CAN SAY IT, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT OFTEN.
IT CAN AND THEN IT CAN REALLY, REALLY IMPACT THE WORK THAT YOU NEED TO DO.
SO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT BALANCE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO COME AND SPEAK BECAUSE I WANT THEM TO, BUT ALSO STILL NOT GETTING STARTED AT STARTING OUR WORK AT LIKE 9 P.M..
MS. NIELSEN I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THAT WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE A TOPIC THAT IS OF SIGNIFICANT INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC AND WE FOUND THIS OUT DURING REDISTRICTING THAT WE HAVE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS SEPARATE THAN MEETINGS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WOULD WANT TO COME AND SPEAK ON THAT TOPIC.
I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN THE POLICY, WHICH ACTUALLY GETS ONE OF MY DIFFERENT THINGS WHEN MY OTHER THINGS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE DIFFERENT, WE COULD SIMPLY SAY SOMETHING VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, LIKE THE TIME LIMITS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS SHALL BE SET AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TOTAL TIME OR WHATEVER ELSE.
BUT YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, THIS PUBLIC HEARING GOING TO HEAR 2 HOURS WORTH OF WHATEVER ELSE.
SO YOU HAVE THAT ABILITY AHEAD OF TIME TO SET THAT LIMIT.
YOU'RE NOT LIMITED TO THAT ONE HOUR.
SORT OF PROACTIVELY SET WHAT THAT LIMIT IS GOING TO BE.
OKAY. SO I THINK WE COVERED THAT ONE.
I ASSUME YOU DON'T WANT TO YIELD TIME.
SO I'VE GOT THAT CURRENT SPEAKER FREQUENCY ONCE PER MEETING IS PRACTICED, DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT WE WANT TO PUT THAT EXPLICITLY IN POLICY ONCE PER MEETING AND NO LIMITATIONS AND REPEATS LIKE FAIRFAX'S.
ANY COMMENTS OR WANTS TO CHANGE ON THAT? I'M WATCHING EVERYBODY'S FACES.
YOUR. YOUR HANDS STILL UP? IS IT STILL UP? STILL UP, OR IS IT.
UM. SO EXTRA TIME FOR TRANSLATIONS.
IT JUST SORT OF SAYS CHAIR'S DECISION ON THIS ONE.
FOR INTERPRETERS, ALTHOUGH ARLINGTON LIVES SEPARATELY, I THINK THAT YOU COULD EASILY INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE TRANSLATION CONCEPT IN THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS, BE IT THROUGH A TRANSLATION OR OR A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER OR SOMETHING ELSE, YOU CAN'T BOIL THAT IN THAT BE WORK. YEAH, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
I'M THINKING ABOUT TRANSLATION SERVICES.
RIGHT. SO THE TRANSLATION SERVICE IS RIGHT NOW YOUR POLICY IS SILENT ON THAT AND IT WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU PUT SOMETHING IN THERE BECAUSE IT'S A SERVICE YOU OFFER THE BOARD CLERK. THE WAY IT WORKS IS IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING TRANSLATED OR HAVE A TRANSLATOR, THE OFFICE THAT DOES THAT REQUIRES REQUEST 48 HOURS OF OF NOTICE, THAT'S SORT OF A STANDARD PROCEDURE.
SO THEY CAN LINE THAT TRANSLATOR UP.
ALTHOUGH YOU COULD TECHNICALLY USE LANGUAGE LINE.
[01:25:01]
AND ARLINGTON'S MODEL OF IF YOU NEED A TRANSLATION, YOU NEED TO LET US KNOW ESSENTIALLY 48 HOURS.AHEAD OF TIME, AND THEN WE CAN PROVIDE THE TRANSLATIONS FOR YOU.
WE JUST CAN'T DO IT AHEAD OF TIME THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN OR PRACTICE.
IT IS RIGHT NOW. NOT NOTHING'S WRITTEN, BUT IT'S GOOD TO PRACTICE.
FIRST, BY CHANGING OUR SIGN UP FORM TO ASK PEOPLE WHAT LANGUAGE THEY WILL BE.
OR SPEAKING IN AND THEN ASK THEM IF THEY WILL BE IN NEED OF TRANSLATION SERVICES.
THEY DON'T NEED TRANSLATION SERVICES.
TESTIMONY. WHICH COULD BE READ BY.
SOMEONE THAT'S. AND THEN I THINK THE LAST RESORT COULD BE WHAT MATT WAS SAYING IF IF NEITHER OF THOSE ARE AN OPTION FOR THEM AND WE CAN'T SET UP A TRANSLATOR, THEN THEY COULD JUST BRING. THE COPY IN WHATEVER LENGTH THEY'RE SPEAKING IN, AND WE CAN HAVE IT TRANSLATED AFTER THE FACT FOR WORD REFERENCE.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS AN ANSWER TO THIS.
IS THERE A WAY TO SET IT UP LIKE PEOPLE COULD ACTUALLY ACCESS THE LANGUAGE LINE IN THE BOARD ROOM? SO WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE MEETING AND WE SAID THERE'D HAVE TO BE A TELEPHONE LIKE AN AUDIO CONFERENCE LINE.
PROBABLY NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE SET UP FROM A TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE AT THIS POINT.
YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S AN OPTION THAT YOU CAN HAVE A PHONE WITH A ZOOM OPTION IN A REMOTE AREA THAT IT WOULD PICK UP THE LANGUAGE, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH FEEDBACK AND.
SO. OR IF THE TRANSLATOR, IF THE LANGUAGE LINE PERSON WERE ON ZOOM LIKE THEY WERE JUST ANOTHER PARTICIPANT, IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. INSTEAD OF IT BEING ON THE PHONE, IF THEY IF THERE WAS A ZOOM OPTION, IF WE CAN HAVE THAT VERSUS A TELEPHONE OPTION, THEY WOULD BE LIKE WE WOULD HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER OUT ON ZOOM. THEY WOULD BE ON ZOOM AS WELL.
SO IT WOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE KIND OF INTERACTION.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A LOT QUICKER.
I MEAN, NOT SAYING THAT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO RIGHT AWAY, BUT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
IN PRACTICE, YOU GUYS DO ACCEPT DIGITAL VERSIONS IN PRACTICE.
POLICY DOESN'T SAY THAT, I'M ASSUMING.
MY FAVORITE KIND OF FEEDBACK CONSENSUS IMMEDIATELY.
ALL RIGHT. NOW, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT TO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE BASIC TYPES OF MEETINGS, BOARD MEETINGS, WORK SESSIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BOARD MEETINGS IN GENERAL.
ALL ALL TAKE SPEAKERS, OF COURSE, AND EITHER ARLINGTON OR ALEXANDRIA.
DOES THE BOARD RESPOND AT ALL? I DID NOT HEAR FROM THE FAIRFAX CLERK WHAT THEIR PROCESS IS.
I'M ASSUMING THEY DON'T RESPOND.
NEITHER ARLINGTON OR ALEXANDRIA TAKES SPEAKERS AT WORK SESSIONS.
AND AT PUBLIC HEARINGS THEY TAKE SPEAKERS AND NO BOARD RESPONSE DID NOTE THAT FAIRFAX HAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR THEIR SPEAKERS AT PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO PART OF THE QUESTION THAT CAME OUT HERE AND IT PRECIPITATED THIS CONVERSATION IS AT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS WHEN WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PUBLIC.
DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT IDEA OF NO BOARD? COMMENTS AT ALL OR WHETHER YOU WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING WHERE ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA INTRODUCED WAS ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION IF SOMETHING WAS UNCLEAR.
NOT EXPRESSING AN OPINION, JUST ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
SO CLARIFYING SOME POINT WAS NOT NOT CLEAR TO ASK THEM TO CLARIFY THAT.
[01:30:06]
SO I'LL PUT THAT ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION.CAN I CAN I BUILD OFF OF THAT? THIS WAS MY IDEA. I'LL TAKE CREDIT OR SHAME FOR IT.
SO MY THOUGHT, MY THOUGHT AS I WAS SORT OF IMPLYING BEFORE, PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN PUBLIC COMMENT AND THAT WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO PROVIDE US WITH THEIR INPUT ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE.
THAT IS A GREAT TIME TO ENGAGE THEM RATHER THAN WAITING TOWARDS AFTER AFTER THE FACT.
THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S WORTHWHILE TO HAVE.
FIRST THING IS. IT'S TIMED SO WE STOP THE TIME.
RIGHT. WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO ASK OUR QUESTION.
THE SECOND THING IS I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.
MY TIME SPENT ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
I KNOW. KELLY TOUCHED ON IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT.
I'VE SEEN FOUR OR FIVE, SIX HOUR.
AND STARTING AT 910 IN THE MORNING, WE DIDN'T GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.
OKAY, SO. YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU DO FOR ONE, YOU HAVE TO DO FOR.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL ASKING QUESTIONS.
AND THAT THREE MINUTE IS NOW TEN, 15 MINUTES.
AND NOW IT'S LIKE, YEAH, I WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR THE NEXT ONE.
I WANT MY TURN AT ASKING QUESTIONS.
SO I'M JUST SAYING I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE CAREFUL.
I'M ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT, FIRST OF ALL, STAFF, ALSO PEOPLE HERE WITH KIDS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
RIGHT. JUST TRYING TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT.
REEF. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE CONVERSATION.
I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS IF WE COULD.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY DON'T INTERACT WITH FOLKS WHEN THEY COME AND SPEAK, BUT I THINK COMING TO SPEAK, I MEAN, I JUST OBSERVING PEOPLE AND HAVING DONE IT MYSELF, YOU KNOW, YOU GET REALLY NERVOUS IF IT'S YOUR FIRST TIME, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO EXPECT.
DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE ENGAGING IN A TOO TWO WAY CONVERSATION? AND SO I JUST THINK I'VE SEEN OTHER BOARDS DO THIS WHERE THEY HAVE LIKE A LITTLE JUST DISCLAIMER THAT'S READ EVERY TIME.
AND WHAT I LIKE ABOUT IT IS THAT IT'S EVERY BOARD MEETING.
SO IT'S IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WELCOME YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT.
YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T A WE ENGAGE IN TWO WAY CONVERSATION OR JUST SOMETHING YOU KNOW THAT JUST KIND OF EXPLAINS THE PROCESS SO THAT EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM HAS THAT EXPECTATION BEFORE ANYBODY STARTS SPEAKING.
JUST REALLY QUICKLY TO YOUR POINT, DR.
REEF, I THINK SOMEONE WOULD BE VERY I WOULD BE TERRIFIED IF I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT QUESTION WOULD COME FROM A BOARD MEMBER. I WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE TERRIFIED.
I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO BE TO BE AFRAID OR SCARED OF US.
BOARD MEMBERS WILL FOLLOW UP BY EMAIL IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
SO I THINK THAT DISCLAIMER WOULD BE A VERY GOOD THING TO HAVE AS WELL.
I THINK I'D BE TERRIFIED FROM THE DAIS IF I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS WERE CONNECTED TO THE PUBLIC.
AND I JUST IMAGINED, LIKE, STAFF TO.
I MEAN, IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH OR ASK.
AND IT'S NOT TO YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, AN INDICTMENT IN ANY WAY ON OUR COLLEAGUES.
I JUST BE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THINGS BEING IMPLIED.
YOU KNOW, IT JUST FEELS A LITTLE.
IT COULD GET MURKY REALLY QUICKLY.
[01:35:01]
SO. JUST REAL BRIEFLY, I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING THAT.I THINK IT KIND OF OPENS THE DOOR TO OUR OWN BIASES.
WE START TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS LIKE THAT BECAUSE SOMETHING WE MAY BE PASSIONATE ABOUT, WE MAY FORGET THAT WE SHOULD BE INFORMED BIAS ON THAT AND START TO DISPLAY OUR OWN VIEWS AND POSITIONS ON IT AND CONSCIOUSLY.
SO I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.
BUT NOW I KNOW I HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AND I UNDERSTAND I STILL HAVE MY APPREHENSIONS.
I STILL FEEL LIKE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME RESPONSE, BUT.
I COULD FORGET THAT I'M UP ON THE BOARD AND START DISPLAYING MY OWN POSITIONS.
SO IT'S SOMETHING TO BE CAUTIOUS OF.
BUT I ALSO WONDER, TOO, HOW MUCH OF IT IS A CHANCE TO ASK AN INDIVIDUAL QUESTION, OR IS IT A CHANCE FOR US TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC AT HAND AS A BOARD? MORE REFLECTIVELY SO.
YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE A HEARING ON A TOPIC, IT IS AN AGENDA ITEM OR SOMETHING.
SOMETIMES IT'S COMING UP, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TIMES THAT.
I KNOW INDIVIDUALS AND I FELT THIS WAY WHERE AFTER WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS ON, LET'S SAY, CLASS SIZE, IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD ON CLASS SIZE IN THE MOMENT VERSUS WAITING UNTIL THE VERY END OF THE MEETING WHEN IT'S THE TIME FOR US TO SAY SOMETHING.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TAKE ON WHAT DR.
SIMPSON BARON WAS PROPOSING, BUT THEN IT COULD PROVIDE AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'M FULLY CONVINCED ON THIS, BUT IT COULD PROVIDE A MOMENT TO DO THAT REFLECTION, NOT PUT SOMEBODY INDIVIDUAL SPECIFICALLY ON THE SPOT.
I DON'T WANT TO BE INAPPROPRIATE.
BUT. WHERE DO THE RULES APPLY FOR OUR STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES ON THE DAIS? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'VE RESPONDED TO CERTAIN THINGS AND HAD INTERACTIONS WITH PUBLIC PUBLIC WITH COMMENTS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT.
IT'LL BE DONE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THAT PRACTICE? SO I THINK WHAT HAPPENS FOR THEM MAYBE IS OFTENTIMES BECAUSE SEE THEIR THEY PREP THEIR COMMENTS.
AND SO SOMETIMES I THINK THEY'RE JUST IN TUNE TO.
WHATEVER IS HAPPENING OR BUBBLING UP IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO THEY HAVE A COMMENT ON IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NECESSARILY RESPONDING.
MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIR HARRIS IS REFERENCING.
I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A RECENT EVENT.
THERE WAS. I GOT SOME QUESTIONS ON ABOUT THE STUDENTS REMARKS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WAS MAYBE THE FIRST TIME THAT MOST OF US HAD WITNESSED THEM ASKING QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR IN PRESENTATIONS. SO I THINK IT'S TWO PART IT'S THE COMMENTS VERSUS ARE YOU REFERENCING LIKE THEIR THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS, THEIR OPENING COMMENTS OR COMMENTS DURING PRESENTATIONS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE MEETING? MORE SO COMMENTS DOING PRESENTATIONS.
AND SOMETIMES THOSE QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THE BOARD.
I THINK WE DO THAT SOMETIMES TOO.
SOME OF THAT WHEN THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS TO STAFF.
WHICH I DON'T THINK IS PROBLEMATIC.
MR. BAILEY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME LIKE.
I'M. I'M PICKING UP WHAT HE'S PUTTING DOWN AS RELATES TO BECAUSE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
[01:40:08]
SPECIFICALLY THE LAST BOARD MEETING ON THAT, RIGHT? ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE ASKING STAFF QUESTIONS.I JUST DON'T I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ELECTED TO DO AND WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE WORK PUT ON THEM.
IF THEY HAVE, THEY SHOULD COME TO US.
STOP THEM FROM DOING THEIR JOB.
I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD TOTALLY BE GOING AGAINST US.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY SHOULD MAYBE PULL US ASIDE.
THEY HAVE SOME ISSUES, SOME THINGS.
FOLKS AREN'T GOING TO STAND FOR THIS AND DO THIS.
I JUST DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT'S.
SO I THINK THAT'S REFERRING TO A SPECIFIC.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE. YEAH.
NOW, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT RESPECTFULLY, I DISAGREE.
WE DON'T HAVE WE HAD STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES THAT STARTED WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD AND THEIR JOB WAS NOT JUST TO BE HERE TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING, THEIR JOB WAS ALSO TO BE FULL PARTICIPANTS, NON VOTING PARTICIPANTS WITHIN OUR BOARD MEETING, ASKING QUESTIONS AND AT TIMES GIVING US ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE.
DR. REEF. Q YEAH, I, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.
SO IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED FOR FOR THAT REASON AT LEAST.
AND I'LL JUST SAY, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, WHAT I'VE OBSERVED, YOU KNOW, OVER THE YEARS IS THAT WE HAD SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVES WHO WERE VERY ACTIVE AND THEN THERE WAS SOME KIND OF SHIFT THAT HAPPENED WHERE I THINK THERE WAS SOME MORE GUIDANCE GIVEN.
BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE STUDENT VOICE, YOU KNOW, AND BUT TO YOUR POINT, I THINK MR. BAILEY, LIKE THEY'RE NOT VOTING MEMBERS, SO SO WE ARE THE VOTING MEMBER.
SO WE DO KIND OF RESERVE RESERVE THAT.
BUT I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL AND I LIKE HEARING FROM THEM AND I THERE WAS A PERIOD WHERE IT GOT TO BE AND I DON'T MEAN NECESSARILY THE ONES, RIGHT, THE STUDENTS THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME, BUT IT WAS ALMOST LIKE JUST ANNOUNCEMENTS AND I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW, I WANT THAT.
THAT PUTS HER PARTICIPATION TO BE REALLY AUTHENTIC.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO GET THAT PERSPECTIVE.
SO THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES POLICY IS ALREADY WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I DID NOTE THE TC WILLIAMS ERROR AND BROUGHT IT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO SAY, HEY, I HAVE A DIFFERENT KIND OF POLICY CHANGE WHERE WE CAN JUST MAKE AN ERROR CORRECTION. AND WE LOOKED AT THE POLICY AND SAID, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS POLICY MORE CAREFULLY.
SO THE SUBCOMMITTEE SAID, NOPE, DON'T TAKE IT FORWARD AS IS.
TAKE IT BACK, RUN IT THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO IT'S STARTING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS NOW.
IT'S ON CUED UP FOR THE EQUITY AUDIT TEAM IN ABOUT A MONTH OR SO.
I DON'T THINK KIDS SHOULD BE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
WHEN SOMETHING GOES DOWN IN THAT SCHOOL, WE'RE GOING TO BE THE ONES TO GET BLAMED.
OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AS RELATES TO SAFETY.
MY SON IS NOT GOING TO SIT UP THERE AND TELL ME HOW HE FEELS HE SHOULD BE TREATED IN SCHOOL OR HOW WHAT SHOULD BE THERE FOR HIM TO MAKE SURE HE'S SAFE? NO. NO, THAT'S.
YEAH, I MEAN, THERE'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK IT GOES BACK TO HOW WE ALL ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION AND, AND MAYBE THE, THE THING THAT WE WANT TO TACKLE IS MORE ABOUT TACT IN DISCUSSION OR HOW TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION AS OPPOSED TO LIKE NOT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL.
LIKE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE GETTING AT IS MORE ABOUT.
[01:45:05]
APPROPRIATE? SO.OKAY. I THINK I THINK WE'RE I THINK WE I THINK I GOT THAT.
SO WE'RE NOT I THINK IT SETTLED AT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IN THEIR QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
DO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO SORT OF LEAVE IT AT.
LEAVE IT AS IS ON THE ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONVERSATION FOR THE NORMS PERSPECTIVE.
AND I WILL SAY AS A STAFF MEMBER WHO HAS HAD SOME ZINGER QUESTIONS, NOT FROM YOU GUYS.
HE'S HAD SOME ZINGER QUESTIONS LATE AT NIGHT.
ANTICIPATE THE ZINGER QUESTION AND IT'S JUST ROUGH.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SUPPORTING THAT.
I WANT TO ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.
THAT'S WHY IT'S GREAT LIKE HAVING A QUESTION AHEAD OF TIME.
I KNOW I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION APPROPRIATELY.
I UNDERSTAND WHY. I'M NOT BEING A GOTCHA.
SO THAT'S GOOD. AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
THERE'S SOME STANDARD DISCLAIMER LANGUAGE AT THE BEGINNING THAT'S USED.
I'VE SEEN. I JUST ASSUMED YOU HAD IT.
BECAUSE YOU ARE, YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH.
WELL, SOMETIMES, BECAUSE SOMETIMES I FORGET TO SAY IT.
AND THEN YOU READ IT THAT WAY, EVERYBODY KNOWS IS KIND OF WHAT HAPPENS.
ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE'VE COVERED ALL THE STUFF, ALL MY QUESTIONS HERE ON THIS.
SO. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME ON THAT.
AND THEN IT'LL CONTINUE THE WAY THROUGH THE REVISION PROCESS AFTER THAT.
SO THAT WAS ME. I WAS IN ATTENDANCE.
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.