[captioner present] 
[waiting for meeting to start] 

Chair Earl:Good morning. Are we going?This is standards andAssessment Committee meeting.We are grateful you are heretoday. I am Jennie Earle and-- Jennie Earl and representdistrict number one, the northof the state.
Vice Chair Brinton: I amJoanne Brinton and representsouthern Utah. The very bottomof Utah. 
Member Wood: I am Leanne Woodand represent district four.
Chair Earl: Online we haveboard member Green.
Member Green: Emily Green Irepresent district 14.
Member Reale: Good morning.This is Sarah Realerepresenting district five. Irealized we go from the top tothe bottom of the state onthis committee.
Chair Earl: We are one of thefew that is blessed to dothat.There is a bit of an echogoing on. We are trying tofigure it out.We have someone for publiccomment. I have that indicatedhere.Burton? Is he on?Stacy McGinnis. Are youonline?We will have about twominutes.
>> Before she starts Stacytaught one of my kids and isone of the best teachers Iknow. She teaches at CrimsonUniversity. She lights up theroom and students fight to getinto her class. I'm excited tohear what she has to saytoday.
Stacey McGinnis: I'm excitedto keep this to two minutes. Iwill do my best to. I talkfast. Today, I'm here askingfor you to pay attention toreferencing line 133 of grade instructional time inclassrooms. I support what thebill will do but I don'tbelieve kids should be onscreens all day. I'mrespectfully asking the boardto recognize kindergarten andthird grade are differentlevels of their learning. Anine year old a third graderand a five year oldkindergartner are in differentplaces of their learning andthis rule doesn't fit the reality of what a third graderis required to do. Third gradeteachers don't waste time. Wecannot afford to. Third gradeis the bridge between primarygrades and intermediategrades. The rigor and demands are high and we tell the kidsthat they are officially bigkids and will use theircomputers more. Students arerequired to not only write afull paragraph essay,but they are required to writea five paragraph essay. Theyare required to do the Utahrise, Acadians maze, and enterreading district tests ontheir computers. These areoptional. If they are not confident on their computerthey will not do well. Mygrandson is in kindergartenand mainly spends 15 to 30minutes a week trying to gethis lexia done on a computer.My students may spend anywherefrom 20 to 30 minutes onChromebooks practicing math,short words, vocabulary, testsfrom Scholastic news, andtheir favorite thing of theyear is to write in theirGoogle Docs. They have towrite a five paragraph essay,usually 4 to 5 times, beforethey get to that point. If thekids don't get to the point,it is straight handwritten.That is the cherry on top forthem. I'm not into overusingtechnology and I don't thinkany teacher in this state is athird grade teacher. I knowsome parent groups areconcerned about this. I understand that but I want theboard to know that in my classand every third gradeclassroom I've been in, Ihaven't seen this happening atall. I'm simply asking you to give third grade their own setof rules, something between Kthrough two restrictions andgrades four through sixframework. These reflect whothey are and what they arerequired and mandated to do bythe state. I would also inviteany of the board members -- Italked to Joanne about this --to come to any third gradeclassrooms come including myown, to see what we are doingin there and how we are usingtechnology. I know there areconcerns but I've never seenit. I come to you today to asknot as someone who isfrustrated, but someone wholoves their job and studentsand wants to get this rightalongside you. My door isalways open and I don't knowof any teacher that doesn'thave their door open to anyonewho wants to come in to seewhat they are doing,especially in third grade. Iinvite parents and studentsand the board to understandthat we need to understandwhat third grade looks like,as you go forward applying therules to make sure thesestudents are leaving confidentand successful, not thatthey're really good on acomputer. Not to compare themto kindergarten or first,these are totally differentbeasts when it comes to thirdgrade. Third grade has a loton the line and a lot morerigorous assessments we haveto do. To have our students not be able to be really goodon the computer in apurposeful and limited way isreally sad. I think itdeteriorates us from teachersand what the kids can do fromthird grade. Thank you.
Chair Earl: Thank you, Stacy,appreciate your comments. Wewill go to the next agendaitem. The first item is thestandards review process.All right, our first item isan information item, P 12physical education standardsrevision update. Who willPresent that today? Teri, wewill turn the time over toyou.
 Teri Davis, Phys EdSpecialist: Greetings. I'm thephysical education specialistoverseeing PE standardsprocess for the organization.We are excited because we'vehad quite a few great andthoughtful meetings in thestandards writing teammeetings. We have a variety ofpeople representing various different areas from all overthe state and also variousdifferent grade levels. Theyare using their expertiseto write all the new standardsthat they want to bring toyou. We are currently workingon a draft and hopefully, thedraft will come to you by theAugust board meeting. We are working with theAquatics Writing team andtrying to catch them up, so wecan submit the PE standards asa full package for yourreview.Right now we have a draft thatwe are just getting ready tocomplete. We wanted to makesure we had it written withfidelity and are making surewe cover all the things.This next week the team willreview the current draft aswritten, making minoradjustments, and we will look forward to submitting this forthe August meeting. Do youhave any questions?
Member Reale: I've seen a lotonline about presidentialstandards coming back. Will weincorporate that in our PEstandards so kids can be madeaware of the presidentialFitness Awards and strive forsome of those certificates?
Teri Davis, Phys Ed Specialist: That's a questioneveryone across the state hasBeen asking me (laughs). Wearen't necessarily naming outthe presidential fitness testin the standards, but you willfind p e teachers will findelements of that test woventhroughout the standards, andthere's even more things inthe standards. We are excitedabout the presidential fitnesstest coming and the gold medalSchools program coming. Also,we are very excited aboutstandards because they willoffer more depth and breadththan what we are teaching inphysical education. 
Vice Chair Brinton: Thankyou.
ChairEarl: Anyone online or boardmembers have comments? We are excited to see those. Theywill be here just in time tostart school. I think we willend up with a whole series ofstandards all at once.
Teri Davis, Phys EdSpecialist: Yes.We have representation fromhigher Ed all the way down topreschool that are writing thestandards. They are addingtheir expertise, research, andbacking behind all thestandards written? We willhave the rationale to go withthe standard.Feel free to ask if you haveany questions.We have wonderful highereducation people that areadding to the reasoning of whywe are doing what we aredoing. I'm excited to get the draft to you. I think will begreat for everyone to see itand to know that when we aretalking physical education, weare not just talking exercise.We are talking about learningphysical education andactivity. This is the plug-- PE isn't just havingstudents go out and exercise.We want students to learn whyexercise is important. This isthe education part of PE. PEteachers across the state want to know what students arelearning and want to make surestudents are learning about wellness and that they will beable to go out into the worldand be able to keep themselves healthy and well throughouttheir lifetime and not justhave it be anexercise class that only lastsan hour.
Chair Earl: Thank you. I don'tsee any other comments orhands. Thank you, Teri, forthe update and we look forwardto reading those when those get to us.
Teri Davis, Phys Ed Specialist: Yep. Thank you.
Chair Earl: Our next item is Rtwo seven seven-334. This is anew rule for us. I don't havewho will be presenting. Yay.
Jennifer Wadsworth: Thisregards house bill 273. We areworking on the model policyrequired by this law. You will see reference to the boardsmodel policy. We don'tcurrently have that policy foryou to view. It is in theworks and I know Doctor Huntis on top of that. It shouldbe to this committee by Augustor September. Basically you,everything in here is new. Ifthere are any questions as wego along, let me know thedefinition. It mandates thatLEAs have model policies inplace by July of 2027, whetherthey choose to adopt ourpolicy or create their own.There are instructions thattalk about how they go aboutthat. There are requirementsfor their AI sandbox coursesif they choose to do it.Technology requirements arealso there as we heard inpublic comment. Any questions? We have a lot of specialiststhat can answer questions andhave been working on the newrule. I have a few amendmentsthat need to be made based onfeedback from LEA in Housecounsel and superintendents toclarify things in the rule. Weare ready for questions.
Chair Earl:Who would like to go first?
Member Wood: I've had feedbackon grade level instructionalsection. I'm wondering if,instead of laying outeverything in the law, thissection can be put in thepolicy. I've been trying toget into LEA dot gov but it'sbeen down for the last threedays to verify. I'm trying tosee if they have a policy thatthey can change some of thoserequirements and adapt some ofthem to the local policy. Iwanted to read the rule.
Chair Earl: I printed themoff. Is there a specific one?
Jennifer Wadsworth:273 dictates LEAs shall --
Member Wood: A selling pointof the law was that itrequired balance and alliescould establish some of thebalance according to the waythey use technology. You saythat wasn't granted in the end?
Jennifer Wadsworth: Notaccording to my reading but wehave Doctor Hunt.
Member Wood: I apologize fornot doing some of the deepdive myself.
Asst Superintendent Hunt:There are guidelines thatallow us to talk about whathappens in third grade. If youlook at lines one and three,we are required to have levelframeworks that are similar tothe bill. It does provide usan opportunity toprovide additional instructionin our model policy. The modelpolicy is focused onunderstanding purpose andwhat's in the law and has a description of best practicesand how schools may workwithin the specific rulesthemselves.
Jennifer Wadsworth: I think itis 133, not 183.
Vice Chair Brinton: I've heardfrom district levelspecialists andsuperintendents that thirdgrade is a tricky year becausethey are mandated to test ontheir Chromebooks. We need toprepare them for that. As Mrs.McGinnismentioned, they are learningto type a five paragraphessay. Zero tech isn't the balance they need for thirdgrade. I understand k throughtwo should be handled thatway, but third grade is abridge to the older grades.
>> Line 139 says preparationor administration forstandards assessment. Itallows for that.
Vice Chair Brinton: We need to focus on that because thecurrent guidance is absolutelyno tech.
Asst Superintendent Hunt: Thisis something we're trying todo with the model policy. Weare trying to do more than explain the requirements. Weare trying to provide best practices and be able toexplain how these things canbe best utilized in a schoolsetting. It will look a littledifferent than a typical modelpolicy. It will give a lotmore guidance around what thepractice looks like.
Chair Earl:I think it begs the questionas to whether there's value inhandwriting as opposed totyping. There is something tobe thought of there.

Vice Chair Brinton: It couldbe handwritten and then thefinal draft typed in. There'sa research around handwritingbeing better for brainconnections and developmentand typing. I know there'svalue for younger students forusing pencils and paper.
Asst Superintendent Hunt:Thanks for sharing that. We will outline these in themodel policy.
>> In terms of what isincluded in the rule, that is what needs to be included inthe policy. The kindergartenthrough third grade frameworkhas to include this.
Chair Earl: You may want tostay there Amy. Don't moveyet. We will tell you when youcan be excused. Are thereother questions that boardmembers have?
Vice Chair Brinton:I was explaining to one of theteachers questions about theprohibit required 1 to 1devices per this may make itsound like you cannot have 1to 1 devices but that's notreally what it says. Theycannot mandate 1 to 1 devices.
Asst Superintendent Hunt:1 to 1 device typically refersto a student taking a devicehome or having onespecifically assigned to themthat no other student isusing. The idea is 1 to 1devices aren't appropriate ifyou're asking younger studentsnot to use them. That doesn'tprohibit a student from usinga device at school.Under the way is explained atthe lawthis is especially true underinstructional law. 
Vice Chair Brinton: It alsosays this about prohibiting 1to 1 devices and they cannotdo any homework requiringinternet access. And some ofthese fifth and sixth gradeclasses, they are learning tomake PowerPoints. Is that ofthe table now?
Asst Superintendent Hunt: No.I think it means where youmake the Powerpoint matters.We shouldn't require someoneto take home a computer and dothe work at home. It is atschool under the direction ofinstructional leaders thathelp make sure people are learning the appropriateskills.
Vice Chair Brinton: Which ishard.
Chair Earl: It is hard. I'mseeing a trend nationally andin this state that we areoversaturated with technology.We are trying to figure outhow to focus on primarylearning objectives, insteadof just a filler. I have acouple of questions.On line 214, it says an ally should provide training toeducators and staff regardinginstructional technologyrequirements. Are we puttingthese in model policy?
Asst Superintendent Hunt: Yes, we are putting it in modelpolicy and put it intraining.
ChairEarl: Okay. This is a trialyear where people can start onthis? Down a little further. You will probably say the samething. Down a little talksabout age appropriatetechnological practices. Arewe developing that?
Asst Superintendent Hunt: Yes.One question we are navigatingthat we navigated on thiscommittee before is what isage appropriate. We are tryingto determine what this lookslike and how we put it in amodel policy that honors thatevery student is different andmay not necessarily fit intoan age appropriate camp. Weare focused on this work rightnow.
Chair Earl:Okay. I had possibleamendments. Then we willcontinue to take questions.Line 71-- I answered my own question.Never mind.Line 126. I think this goes tostaffing. When the LEA sendstheirsubmission of finalized policyand a statement confirmingthat the LEA held a publicmeeting required by nsubsection 2 -- who holdsthis?
Asst Superintendent Hunt: Wediscuss with policy team andit is probably mostappropriate to put it in the yearly assurances of theschool district. They send itto us. We can require that aswell. This is not somethingthey would adjust every singleyear. We need the initialassurance.
Chair Earl: You are saying it comes as evidence that they dothat?
Asst Superintendent Hunt:Yes.
ChairEarl: That makes sense. Onemore.Who is this?An Ellie may provideaccommodations or supports. On236 it says access toeducational professionals with expertise in technologyrelated learning difficulties.I'm assuming this is withinlocal LEA? Who are weenvisioning this as? Maybethey have to assign someone?
Asst Superintendent Hunt: Itmay vary by school district orLEA depending on resources andlevel of expertise. Manyspecial education teachers andleaders have understanding oftechnology related learningdifficulties or have accessand understanding of where to get help.
Chair Earl: They probably needto designate someone as a goto person.
Asst Superintendent Hunt: Yes.We have writers in special education at USBE that arehelping us with this.
Jennifer Wadsworth:If we go to the motions doc wehave the effect of code.We need to add these two andremove the word through. 
Vice Chair Brinton: I make themotion to amend the word"through" be stricken andReplaced with "53-G-7-229, 53_G-7-14-2, and". 
 Member Wood:
--
Chair Earl: The motion as westrike the word "through" andreplace it with"53-G-7-229, 53_G-7-14-2, and".All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> We have motion to amendsection six subsection four,by adding a new subsection, E,thatReads, "refrain from using generativeartificial intelligence to independently grade studentwork.
"
>>What we had in the rule iseducators cannot usegenerative AI to independentlygrade a student's work. Weneed to make it more clear(laughs)
Chair Earl: Any discussion tothe motion? I'm not seeinghands. The motion before thecommittee is that we amendsection six, subsection four,by adding a new subsection, e,that reads, "refrain fromusing generative artificial intelligence to independentlygrade student work." all thosein favor? That passesunanimously.Do we have any otherrecommended?
Vice Chair Brinton: I hadsomeone send a chart regardingdigital citizenship.There was concern about whereit was placing news outlets.It seemed biased in the way itwas presented. I'm wonderingwhere the appropriate placewould be to share this chartso we can look at it. Do weapprove what is in the digitalcitizenship classes?I will share that later andbring that back.
Chair Earl: I wondered if thatis curriculum or a resource.When it comes to the AIportion of this come we'vepretty much built out aframework already. Are we anticipating a lot of work onthat or just stretching itdifferent? It seems like we'vebeen in the space for a bit.
Asst Superintendent Hunt:Because we've been in thespace we can provide guidancearound AI that we've alreadyprovided and will already be part of the model policy.Thanks to the work of Matt andour team, a lot of this work is already done.
Chair Earl: Okay. I think I'mlooking for a motion for thisdocument. 
Vice Chair Brinton: Irecommend the committeeApprove R277-335, classroomtechnology, draft one, as amended on first reading and forward tothe board for approval onsecond and final reading.
Member Green: I have one thingregarding the lower part ofthis that talks about AI.
Chair Earl: Do you have aline?
Member Green: Let me bring itup real quick. It regards thefirestorm of the new contractswith Gemini. Have we put thisdraft up against what wesigned with Gemini and have wemet the criteria with thatcontract? How does that applyto what we've written hereabout the relationship with AIin the school setting? I'mthinking it's probably thefirst quality check we can butit up against.
Chair Earl: Does anyone haveinformation or response?

Asst Superintendent Hunt: Whenwe are looking at policy or agreements with others we aremaking sure we acknowledge AIpolicies we put in place andprivacy agreements.Nothing would have been part of an agreement if it hadn'tbeen considered in alignmentwith those policies andagreements.
Member Green:When teachers move forward, ifthey choose to utilize AI inclassrooms, will they havebeen trained on this rule?What does the teacher sidelook like in understandingethics? What is the on the ground conversation look likehow you make
-- what is on the groundconversation look like?
Asst Superintendent Hunt:One of the things is a localdecision. That makes it theirresponsibility to provideappropriate responsibletraining to their teachers touse it but no one is requiredto use the technology.
Member Green: To clarify on279, it says that artificialsandboxcourses limit the coursegrades nine through 12. Thisdoesn't imply Gemini can beused only in grades ninethrough 12?
Chair Earl: I don't think thatspeaks to a certain provider.That would be whoever thedistrict contracts with oncewe have a standard set. I don't know if that answersyour question or if there'ssomething more to answer.
Member Green: Probablyunderstanding the relationship with Gemini and the schoolsetting. We've builtprovisions in to keep it ageappropriate in different gradelevels. We are separating thisout. Is AI able to be utilizedin K through 12 at large orare they isolating to specificgrade levels? 
Chair Earl:Does Matt winters haveinsight?
Thalea Longhurst:If you recall last fall whenyou were looking at some ofour CTE courses for standardapproval,Member Wood and the rest ofthe committee wrote specificstandards that go into thechorus, grade seven through12, that talk about AI. I knowin digital literacy there's alittle bit about AI ethics andhow to use AI. Anything in grades seven through 12 wherewe talk and teach aboutartificial intelligence aspart of the course, thesestandards and even more may beincluded.
Chair Earl: Maybe this willpiggyback on this but at thetop of the document, when itsays the board willincorporate artificialintelligence -- line 10 --into Utah standards, that isjust one course, right? Thisis the CTE course abouttechnology?
Thalea Longhurst: Can you askone more time?
Chair Earl: Lines nine through11 say the board is requiredto incorporate artificialintelligence, digitalliteracy, media literacy, andtechnology standards into Utah core standards.
Thalea Longhurst: It will be more than one courseintegrated into all kinds ofcourses. We have two billsthat go hand in hand. There'sthis one and HB 218, which isspecific to digital literacyand studies requirements. Itrequires more of a K through12 integrative approach thanwe've ever done before.
Chair Earl: The AI frameworkwill inform what this lookslike?
Thalea Longhurst: That's aMatt question.I'm phoning a friend. A lot ofthose were in library media standards.
Chair Earl: Okay. The restrictions and frameworkwould use the AI framework toinform those? Is that accurate?
Thalea Longhurst: Yes.
Chair Earl: Changing AIframework may be the place tostart so that it stays withinprovisions when we roll outnew provisions?
Thalea Longhurst: They workhand in hand. We can't go outside of that.
Chair Earl: I don't know ifthat helped board member Green.
Member Green: Yes. Thank you. 
Member Wood: We talk aboutprotecting student safety andprivacy. We talk about privacyin the training element. Whenit comes to the section aboutartificial intelligence userequirements, we don't mentionstudent privacy in there atall. Does this need to beduplicated or is it the factthat 282 and 283 arespecifically related to thesandbox course? Is itappropriate to put this intothe AI use requirements?
Vice Chair Brinton:I know there's been afirestorm in the media andpeople worried about Geminicontracts. This shouldn't be afirestorm because this isabout aprivacy agreement requiringGoogle to come to the tableand promise that they won'tuse students data. This isabout protecting students ifdistrict chooses to use it.The state has power to sign astronger contract that otherLEA is can sign onto. I assumethere are lots of teachers whomay not know, and may just behaving students go on toGoogle Classroom anyway, without these agreements inplace. Do we need somethingstronger to educate ourteachers? Just by clicking onand going to a website you may sign in an agreement andgiving away student datawithout knowing it. We wantthem to go throughprivacy data.
Chair Earl: I've been on theprivacy Working Group alongwith Member Davis and aprimary thing is to make sureeducators know that you cannotjust sign up with something.You have to have a contractand data privacy agreement. You have to make sure it isapproved by the district. I'mnot saying people aren't doingit but that has become thecommon narrative. I've heardthis over and over. Hopefullythis is getting out to peopleand they understand that just because something isavailable, you cannotautomatically bring it to the schools. You have to gothrough a process and makesure the agreement is signedso we are keeping studentsdata privacy protected.
>> There's nothing thatprevents it from being added.
Chair Earl:I had a little birdie tell meabout it. (laughs). Do we have additional questions before wego for a vote?
Member Reale: Technologychanges rapidly and we are notfully aware of the effect on our students and the benefitsof technology. There's abalance we need to make. I seethis as a right now rule because that is the only wayit can be applied. I thinkthere is some purpose inputting certain technologypieces into code, but thisbalancing will be difficult tounderstand fully until we havemore time for technology,especially with AI.This is a space that issimilar to looking at studentsdifferent learning styles.Some students can achieve welland learn really well withtechnology and others can't.Our public comment was greatbecause there's so muchtechnology that can benefit our students but we have tomake sure we balance that. I'mnot sure if a law is a great way to do that but this ruledoes a great job as a starting place considering our currentclimate.
Chair Earl: It begins to ask the question of what is toomuch, what is appropriate, andis it educationally valuable.If you've been in the schools,you've seen incorrect andcorrect use. For me it draws attention to the concerns andputs an exclamation point onit asking to be moreintentional about what you'redoing. Don't just pick something up because it isthere any other comments?
Member Wood: I have an off thetopic question. Does any ofthis restrict the law or rulein terms of devices forstudents with specialeducationwhen we have nonverbalstudents and they have devicesthat help them withcommunication? There areclassrooms where people saythat they cannot be on thesedevices. Then we limit theircommunication and it causesmisbehavior and frustration.
Asst Superintendent Hunt: The--
Thalea Longhurst:The law has a line thatspecifically addresses the.
Chair Earl:This is the piece that goeswith it.Okay. I'm not seeingadditional comments. Ifsomeone wants to move thisforward -- we have to read it one more time so we can voteon it to make the motion before the committee is thecommittee approve R2 7733 forclassroom technology draft oneas amended on first readingand forward to the board onapproval and second and finalreading. All those in favor?Four in favor and oneabstention by board memberGreen. Thank you next ishigh school course gradingrequirementsR 277717
Jennifer Wadsworth: Thisfollows House Bill 502 anddirect response to grading.Teachers allow up to 10% ofthe grade to be linked tostudent citizenship and if anLEA allows, up to 20%? Thechanges are at the bottom ofthe bill beginning on line 97.There's a reference to citizenship grading standards.We have Kathy Gray and many others ready for yourquestions.
Chair Earl: Do you needadditional information onthis?
Member Wood: I would love tounderstand the parent opt outprocedures.We are talking about on timeresponsibility. What our parents being allowed to optout of?
Jennifer Wadsworth: They areallowed to opt out of LEApolicy to allow students gradeto be affected by this. Theyare not allowed to opt out of the teacher's choice toinclude this. If an LEA has apolicy that allows acitizenship grade affect academic grade, a parent canopt out of this. If theychoose this, they also opt outof the scholarship programthat is available with this.If a teacher in their ownclassroom has a 10% policy, a parent doesn't have thisoption. 
Vice Chair Brinton: Is thiswritten in a way that givesteachers the autonomy to holdstudents accountable for neverbeing in class?I just heard frustration froma lot of high school teachersabout being pressured fromadministration on graduationand passing students whohaven't shown up in class andhaven't done their work. Gosh,they say we need to just letthem graduate. I thinkproficiency, being in class,and proficiency and knowledgeis more important than agraduation percentage.
Jennifer Wadsworth: I thinkrepresentative Welton's intentis to mitigate that. You haveto show up to work on time.This is seeking to fix this.We allow LEAs to have autonomyto decide if they want toimplement this. Representative Welton went further and saidthat N LEA can choose that but a teacher also gets to makethe decision. So, yes, I guessis the answer to yourquestion.
Chair Earl: I'm going fromline110. Attendance is easilymeasurable. Meeting deadlinesis easily measurable.112 isn't measurable at alland I don't know what thatmeans per class participationand personal engagement.This focus is on whatever theeducator decides on this. Isthis in law that this has tobe part of the criteria?Is this defined as durable skills and law?
Jennifer Wadsworth: They doand they are.
>> This is about working withother classmates. This skillis beneficial as adults.
Chair Earl: This is hard to measure depending on whatgroup you are in.
Member Reale: I have group assignments in my classes and I can tell who isparticipating and who isn'tengaging with their groupmateson the project. There are rubrics that make it reallyclear about whether someoneparticipated. There areoptions for students to givegroup members scores for howthey participated in the group.
Chair Earl: I'm notquestioning that it's valuableto engage with others.It's in law. Is effectivecommunication in law as well?
Jennifer Wadsworth:Representative Welton waswanting to align these withskills in the workplace.You have to personally engagewith coworkers and effectivelycommunicate.
Chair Earl: Can someone talkto us about the scholarshippiece?
Jennifer Wadsworth: It'scoming from voluntary taxcontributions from-- 
Chair Earl: We don't know whatthe scholarship is?
Jennifer Wadsworth: Itfluctuates and the USBE makesthe decisions. There is nomoney in the account. The onlyway that LEA can participate is if they have a policy thatincludes citizenship grade.The LEA cannot ask for the scholarship to be offered ifthey don't have the policy in place.
Chair Earl: If there's ascholarship? Can they renew it every year if they choose tobe part of it?
Jennifer Wadsworth: If theywant to be part of the scholarship they have to havethe policy in place. If thescholarship is in place and they have money available,they are eligible, but if theydon't have a policy in place,they have to get one in place before they apply.
Chair Earl: Is this impactingCollege scholarshipsand going into college?There's nothing in there aboutthat?
Jennifer Wadsworth:This will relate to studentsapplying for college if theyhave a citizenship grade. Iknow there are scholarshipslinked that are not state scholarships but otherscholarships linked tocitizenship grades. That'salways been the case.
Member Green: I have a quickquestion on line 126. If I'munderstanding correctly, theLEA has to establishprocedures for parent opt outrequests? We won't build amodel policy? That will comefrom the LEA?
Jennifer Wadsworth: Correct.
Member Green: Is there adeadline about when that willbe developed?
 Jennifer Wadsworth: It is partof their policy. Part of thepolicy is how the parents canopt out.
Chair Earl: When theyestablish citizenship gradingpolicy they have to adopt this?
Member Green: Is that approvedby local boards or is thatdistrict level?
Jennifer Wadsworth: I'm sorryI don't mean to talk over you(laughs) if they establish apolicy it has to beestablished according to openand public meeting policy.
Member Green: Thank you.
Chair Earl: Additionalquestions? Okay. I'm lookingfor motion.
Vice Chair Brinton:I recommend (laughs) when ICan read it -- I recommend thecommittee approve R2 77-717high school requirements draftone and forward two approvalfor the board on second andfinal reading.
Chair Earl: The motion beforethe committee is that theCommitteeapprove R277717 high schoolgrading requirements on secondand final reading. All thosein favor? That Passesunanimouslyour next item is child sexabuse and human traffickingInstructional materialsapproval. Welcome. Pleaseintroduce yourselves.I have a couple comments thatare probably just cleanup.Under tips for posting, it hasthese parenthesesand says extortion and says"removeExtortion porn." I think we use"sextortion" in Utah. If it isin their script, it probably needs to be updated. They haveit in there to remove that. Itis under the tips for posting.It didn't have a page number.Sorry.At the end of the document -- I think this must have comefrom Ohio -- it has all theOhio references, like the Ohiothis and that. It shouldprobably say Utah.Child prevention referencesneed to be updated to reflectthe state of Utah.That's what I have on the first one. I don't know ifothershave anything. The other notethat you can pass along is theWarning signs vector wasreally well done.It's been so long, a week, adecade since then (laughs) butI put a note in there that wasso well done. Does anyone onhave anything under thatparticular item?
>> Do you want us to go backto the vendor and providethese suggestions?
Chair Earl: You need tobecause they need to updatetheir resource page. Do youwant a formal motion? Whatdoes the committee want?
>> Let's make a formalmotion.
ViceChair Brinton: I felt thematerial was well done and Iwouldn't want to holdapproval.
Chair Earl: I want thoseupdated.We can make a motion they update those for next monthwhen it comes to this fullboard.
Vice Chair Brinton: In thepast we pended approvalwith recommended changes.
Chair Earl:I make a motion that we checkunder the section tips forposting and remove "revengeporn" and change to"sextortion." make sure thatis updated.The second piece is thatresources reflect Utah'sresources and not Ohio's. I'msure you guys are the health department probably alreadyhave that.
>> It is actually in theminimum standards.
Chair Earl: Let's also putreference number as24580.Any additional comments? 
>> I thought it was reallywell done.
Chair Earl: Okay. I will putthat motion out. Move thatcurriculum 24850, undersection tips for posting, thewords "revenge porn" bereplaced with "sextortion"and the resources reflectUtah's resources, not Ohio's.Is this an amendment?Let's move this one forwardand we cansay that pending changes, itwill be brought to the fullboard.You are clear what needs tohappen there? We are movingthis before the committee thatin curriculum 24850, under the section tips for post some ofthe words "revenge porn" bereplaced with "sextortion" andthat the resources reflectUtah's resources coming Ohios and forward to the full boardfor approval pending thesechanges.
Member Green:Does this mean it comes backto committee, we approve it,and then forward it or will weknowit's been changed first andthen they will forward it?
Chair Earl: Well we previouslydid is once it was changed,staff sent materials andchanges to us, so we would beaware of these prior to thenext board meeting. This iswhat we've done previously. Idon't see holding this up aslong as they make the changes prior to the next boardmeeting.
Member Green: We can expectthe same action?
Associate Superintendent Voorhies: We can make adocument for you that thechanges were made so that itis easy and clear.
Member Green: Thank you.
Chair Earl: That is what wewill do. All those in favor?Did you vote come on MemberGreen?
Member Green: I said "aye."
Chair Earl: That passesunanimously the nextitem is--we have two more items on thisone.We reference Sean Reyes, he'snot the attorney generalanymore. If you can updatethis to attorney general andnot just the name.I had to scan this. I wasn'table to get Ahold of thevideo. I had to read the wholedocument. Scan the documentand make sure this is updatedwherever it is, so it iscurrent. The other questionreferences disassociation.This isn't settled science. Ihad a question around thispiece about whether it isaccuraterepresentation.Maybe ask whoever this is if they can provide betterresearch.Disassociation isn't settledscience.I wasn't able to watch thevideo, so I don't know howthat sits in there.
>> I don't remember that standing out in the videoswhen I watched them. I thoughtthis was a curriculum wellchosen and well done. Itprovides different scenarios that a lot of our childrenface and red flags to look forand how to help. It ends onhope and healthy relationshipsand healing. I reallyappreciated that because thisis, sadly,something that has affectedeveryone.Online has allowed thewidespreadof porn that is an epidemic.I'm glad we're providingfamilies tools.
>> Would you want them tosubmit research?
Chair Earl: I don't know if research would suffice maybe Ineed to watch the video.
Vice Chair Brinton: As I'mlooking at the transcript,this doesn't stand out ashighlighted. As I watch thevideos, isn't this a protected mechanism in the communitywhen somethingpainful happens? You put upblocks?
Chair Earl: It has positiveuses but has been misused aswell.

>> It's a fairly common termin mental health.
Chair Earl: I don't haveenough information to do withit I couldn't watch thevideos.For whatever reason I couldn'tfigure out how to do this.Mine was reading. Maybe it'sthat. It's an impossibility,not an emphasis.
>> I'm happy to look at thiswith you.
Chair Earl: Maybe we can dothat after the meeting.
Chair Earl: That's all I hadon this one. I thought thesituations were presented and one of them kept me up atnight to be honest with you.It was a real life situationthat took place. I'm appreciative that this boardand the legislature over thelast five years put structuresin that when we get materialscome,we don't get pages ofconcerns. There are only a fewthings we look at.Everyone has worked hard, sowe have the best qualitymaterials coming to us ormaterials that don't meet thecriteria don't come to us. I'mlooking for a motion on this.
Vice Chair Brinton: I move thecommittee approved childsexual abuse and humantrafficking preventioninstruction materials 24846 onwatch trafficking througheducation adult serving youthand forward to the boardupon final approval
 Associate SuperintendentVoorhies: Did you wantreplacement of Sean Reyesattorney general in the --
Chair Earl: I was reading thetranscript. It is hard to knowhow that played out.
>> I can reach out to theorganization and requestupdate the Attorney Generalpiece.
 Vice Chair Brinton: That's whothe Attorney General was atthe time and who they were working with. They were givinghim credit Primark
Chair Earl: Maybe it doesn't matter but I read thetranscripts.
>> I am happy to reach out andclarify.
Chair Earl:If the content was spot onthat's fine.The motion before the committee is that thecommittee approved the childsex abuse and humantrafficking preventioninstructional materials 24846,OnWatch,combating trafficking through education, adult serving youthand forwarded to the fullboard for final approval? Allthose in favor? Passesunanimously. The last one is--I sent the email on this one.Did you get a chance to watchthis?This was the third module. There is confusion because yousee an adult male putting hishand on the shoulder of achild. You can tell it was anadverse don't touch me thing.The very next frame you see another individual putting ahand on the shoulder. Itseemed to send mixedmessages.
>> Is it all right if I providesome feedback?They talk about hugging andtouching and show both ofthese images. I believe it isimportant to distinguish thedifference. If you read thescript they have a conversation about what is andwhat is not okay when it makesyou feel uncomfortable. I feellike this is real life. Sometimes someone can touchyou on the shoulder and it is comfortable and sometimes thesame thing can happen and itis not comfortable.
Chair Earl: You are saying youtook the script with the videoand felt the explanation was--
Vice Chair Brinton: I did aswell. After you sent the emailI watched the video again andread the script. I appreciatedgoing back through it. I'mconfident passing it on. Ourchildren need to be armed to understand that it is thefeeling inside. It's importantto learn to tune in to theinner voice and that will keepthem safe. The same actioncoming from different peoplewith different intent can meandifferent things. Learning tocue into the inner voice, andthird grade it is the keyhere, is well done.
Chair Earl: The other questionis the language of inspection. I've never seen the languageused.

Mindy Elliott: I included thatbecause this is what we see insexual abuse. They are showingprivate parts. Sometimes it isappropriate to inspectsomething. I appreciate yourfeedback for me to lookthrough this. When she said"inspect"
, sometimes that isappropriate. Sometimes talking and touching is appropriateand other times it isn't. Iappreciated the conversation that came along with the videopiece. Sometimes I'm lookingat something and inspecting itand sometimes when I'm lookingat it and inspecting somethingit is appropriate and thathelps distinguish okay and not okay situations.
Chair Earl: Okay. Those werethe only ones I found withthose particular ones. Didanyone else have comments onthose? I'm looking for amotion on the final one.
Vice Chair Brinton: I willmake a motion that the committee approved childsexual abuse and humantrafficking prevention andinstructional materials 24852,education to protect, Kthrough six abuse prevention,elementary student child sexual abuse and forward tothe full board for finalapproval. 
Chair Earl: Additionalcomments? Motion before thecommittee is that thecommittee approved child sexabuse and traffickingprevention instructionalmaterials24852 education to protect Kthrough sex abuse prevention elementary student childsexual abuse and forward tothe final board for approval.All those in favor? Thatpasses unanimously. We aregoing to take an eight minutebreak. We usually plow throughand you guys arepatient with me. We will startback up at 1030.[background conversations] 

Chair Earl:All right, we will start backup here thanks for letting ustake a break. It is nice to dothat occasionally. We are onitem 3.6, standards reviewprocess. We've been working onthis for a little bit. There'sbeen a lot of discussion. The code associated with this nextyear looks like they areconsidering this forsunsetting. Am I right onthat? Some elements of it? Whatever we consider we wouldhave to engage with somelegislative things. We need tokeep this in mind. Any boardmembers with comments before Iput out recommendations?
>> Thanks for your work onthis. I appreciate it.
Member Reale: Last time I wastalkingabout addinglead liaisons. We went back onforthdeciding how this would workinternally with USBE staff andhow they are picking them. The lead liaison section is greatand outlines everything wetalked about.The only other part I wasthinking about in this--in my fourth year on standardsI feel we have changed thisprocess to allow for boardmember review. I think thatmade sense at the time, justto put that out there. Withthe review process can you doa top level overview of howthis works. Is there atop level process? MemberEarl, I don't know if you havea opinions about there being aseparate board member reviewtime to submit comments andfeedback or if it can just belumped in with lumped infeedback period.
Chair Earl: I will make asuggestion and hopefullyeveryone is okay with this. Ididn't look at the document. Iprinted off the main. I o an apology because I'm not on thesame page. Is it okay if weshift this to the lastdiscussion item and pull itback up?This may allow me time to readthrough it so we are on thesame page. Does that makesense?We will go to the librarypolicy and special Edrecommendations and then wewill have 20 to 30 minutes fordiscussion.
>> Maybe Megan can do an--
Dr. Meghan Everette:Everett, director of teachingand learning.
Chair Earl: We're looking atthe one that saysJune 5th,2026.I am apologizing.
Dr. Meghan Everette: There'sone that says example of fullstandards process.
Chair Earl: Yes. That wouldsay example of full standardsprocess at the top when youclick on it?
Member Green: Where are we at?I'm trying to follow.
Chair Earl:June 5th, 2026. Standards process overviewJune 2026. This takes ideas from last meeting and putsthem into a usable format. 
Member Green: Thank you.
Chair Earl: We will keepworking on this and move it to the end.
Dr. Meghan Everette: Theprocess starts with the keenrubric we've been working onand moves this to a ten yearreview cycle, starting to q itafter six years ofimplementation. You couldn'tbegin to Q until the sixthyear. You get feedback and look at things that havechanged and you bring itforwardand consider a process or not.Once you make a decision fromthat point to open thestandards or not, we make thetwo concurrent committees. A good bit of this details whatthis could look like. Thereview committee would be the one more historicallyappointed, and the suggestionis to be appointed by thestate board and Chair. Youcould take nominations andmake these decisions. This includes teachers, businessrepresentatives, and higher education. That is what iscurrently on the committee.The writing committee would becomposed at the same time and is more technical than ourcurrent process, where we takein applicationsand it is not internationalvendors applicants but peoplein the field that are experts.We also use our staff. There'sa description here of hownominations and applications differed previously than whatwe used for this information.A new step is to add in theLead liaison. Once the committees are decided uponand formed, the first thingyou do is select lead liaisonsor speakers for each of thesegroups. This is who interactbetween each other in the groups and interacts with theboard throughout the process.The staff have to be part ofthis. There are coreresponsibilities for each ofthese detailed. These could be set.The research or appointedgroup make overarchingrecommendations, similar towhat we previously had. Theyhave to be involved morethroughout to refer back tooriginal recommendations. Thewriting Committee would be thewriters and drafters of thestandards, as they have been.Then we talk about theagreement that may be signedbetween the Committee andwriters that may clarify responsibilities, right toprivacy, and liaisonresponsibilities. It alsotalks about how they can andcannot engage in advocacy around the standards theywrite. This is put into theSSA that they sign.Then we go through asimplification of thestandards process. We createthe committees in step one andin step two we do a researchphase, which is somewhat new.We look at things that existdown the road, look at other standards, and look at bestpractices. Step three is thebest point of collaboration.The review committee, writingcommunity, and staff memberscan look at recommendations.From there we move intoinitial draft some of thelongest part of the processand then come back and bringback the writing committeeliaisons, review committee,and board members to addressthe first draft to answerinitial questions. This is also the point where the boardcould give specific feedback. You wouldhave a chance to get yourquestions answered and givefeedback in the same bubble oftime. Once they update thedraft, it will go out forpublic comment as it does now.We are requesting legislationshortens draft time to 45 daysand make updates from publiccomment. Board members couldstill give more input into thepublic comment point as youcan now.You come back and discuss whatdiscussion was had aroundpublic comment. This helpsdirect the revision phase.After revision, they come backand have more discussion before submitting the finaldraft that goes to standardsand assessment and then theboard.There is still a point ofspecific feedback for theboard built in. The writingcommittee still leads the workbut it engages the review committee that did the initialresearch at specific points.It would be up to you to decide how much the board youwant. Is it just the committeeor a few members or two peopleor everybody? They get twopoints of contact where theycan ask questions andcollaborate. It doesn't open up the writing or reviewcommittee to be availableall day because they areworking professionals. This isthe big picture. There was another draft that was theconcurrent Standards Committeerevision process. We tookthese suggestions and put theminto the process.
Vice Chair Brinton: I likeboard member Reale'ssuggestion wondering if boardmember feedback form andpublic comment could beconcurrent, so we could get feedback from constituents andshare with our own teachersand superintendents and listento what they are saying andthe feedback from our district.We are looking at having a targeted review where we don'thave to do a full blownreview. How can this bestreamlined and differentiatedwhere we can update for legalcode changes?
Chair Earl: That's a totallyseparate process.
Vice Chair Brinton: Okay. Thisis for standards and on a tenyear timeline. I appreciate that.
Chair Earl:I'm trying to figure outconcurrent.It almost feels like we haveto have a draft before we getan update because it hasmoving parts. Is thataccurate? Is that what youwere implying?
Vice Chair Brinton: Publiccomment comes after a firstdraft, correct?
Dr. Meghan Everette: The waywe've written is you would have a draft and they havepoint of collaboration where they can share the draft andyou can make comment. Youwould still have the boardmember 30 day public feedbackphase before they update itand go to full public comment.If I'm understanding thesuggestion, it would be tohave the point of contact andfeedback but then yourcomments and public commentswould occur at the same time, shortening the timeline alittle bit.
Member Reale: I think that makes sense. I know why wemade the change originally but I don't know if it isnecessary now.
Chair Earl: You are sayingwell it's out for public comment board members wouldmake comments? I wouldn'tagree with this because if wehave significantrecommendations of some kind,they haven't gone through apublic comment period.We are cutting time down butif there are significantrecommendations and then wesend it out for publiccomment, we have a differentview of it. It is like a morefinished product versussending it in both directions.That's the only concern Ihave.Provisions may be different. Iwant it as clean as possibleso the public can address where we want it to head atthat point.
 Vice Chair Brinton: I wonderif we could have morecommunication as boardMembers. Maybe an email sent.I got notification ofleadership standards anddidn't know that they had been sent out. That would behelpful.
Member Green: I understandstreamlining everything andsee a positive purpose forkeeping the two of themseparate. I'm probably alignedwith what Member e
-- Member 
Earl was saying.Were you referencing combiningsteps six and seven, that those comments would happen atthe same time? 

Member Reale: I was trying toshorten up a bit. This hasn'tseparated out.-- this has it separated out.I won't die on this hill. This is something we've talkedabout over the process of thelast five years.
Vice Chair Brinton: There aretwo public comment periods?The draft is open to publiccomment to read. What is stepseven? They can submitcomments and in step six it isread only?
Dr. Meghan Everette: Step sixis where it is brought to theboard to release for publiccomment. That section probablyneeds a better title.
Member Green:I think this sits on whatMember Brinton is saying,being aware of when these arereleased. If I understand stepsix, this addresses that inthis manner. I've been a partof the 45 day public meetings and Isat in on this when USBE makestheir way around the state andto see parents that show up.You sit around the table and talk about these standards andwork through them. This is something that was productive.I don't want to interfere withthis. The comments receivedabout math standardsspecifically have beenhelpful. I feel six and sevenare pretty solid. 
Chair Earl: We can keep talking about this. We willfinish it up. (laughs).
Member Green: Sorry. Someoneis talking. I didn't want totalk over someone. This is inregards to the liaisons.I'm going back up on page onethrough three.Ken board members direct theliaisons to guide specificwork? We normally direct staffwith these standards. What isthe relationship between boardmembers making a motion anddirecting the work with thisnew rule that could beimplemented?
Dr. Meghan Everette:We did not say. I believe it would be similar to the workof the writing committee rightnow. Right now you direct the writing committee to makechanges through staff.Through staff you could directthe review committee toresearch something further. 
Member Green:Okay. With this communicationWould it be the responsibilityof the writing committee orthe designated staff?
Dr. Meghan Everette: Staff would be present but it wouldbe the lead Liaisons thatwould be the interaction pointbetween what you want done andeveryone that participates in work.
Member Green: How would wetrack this? I feel we have apretty good idea ofaccountability between theserequests and staff. How couldwe track if this communicationhappens from our lead?
Chair Earl: I'm lookingbetween steps two and three.In steps two, writing inreview Committee beginslooking at research.Suggestions on step two arebrought before the full board.At that point we would make a chart or something and thatwould follow with the LeadLiaisons?
Dr. Meghan Everette: I thinkit would be similar to how itis now. You would make suggestions that get documented and they take themback and put them into action.Staff would still be presentand a part. This would be likeany other meeting I imagine.The difference from what is happening now is instead oftalking to staff only, youhave them in front of youwhere they can ask follow upquestions as to what you meanor you can clarify about whatyou mean. We are removingstaff as the gatekeeper. Youare having more directconversation.
Member Reale: I know there'slogistics of giving feedbackbut we give feedback in a lot of different ways and theyusually give a response.This allows us to havediscussions about understanding each other'sviewpoints.The benefit of having liaisonsis having conversation aroundthings being included or not.I think this is huge.
Chair Earl: I just readthrough this andI'm going to have tomake some minor changes.
Member Reale: For the Legopeople? (laughing).
Chair Earl: This is getting towhere the secondary committeeis a check. I feel comfortablemoving this forward.
Member Reale: Just from avisual perspective, we'velooked at so many of these revision process documentsover the years. This one wasthe most easily digestible. Ithink all board members shouldread this once approved. Theprocess can be confusing ifyou aren't on standards.
Chair Earl:There is time between now and August if there are additionalrecommendations. 
Member Green: How often do theleads come? Do they come everytime the item is on theagenda?Do they only come if stepthree is triggeredand not for step six?Just wondering.
Dr. Meghan Everette: That's agreat question. I wouldenvision them being presentfor each step. The alternativewould be at the labeledcollaboration points. That is what they would be heldresponsible for. I think youwould get better participationif we think about workingparents or business people, whoever you put on there.These are the four points theyare responsible for.
Member Green: If a boardmember were to make a motion, which is different thanconversation,does the lead know what to dowith thatand what authority that holds?Staff understand the process of how this is implemented andutilized. 
Dr. Meghan Everette: I don't envision lead liaisons wouldinteract without staffpresent. Staff would helpguide and facilitate this. This is what they are doingnow with the WritingCommittee.Usually, whether it is writingor review Committee, we dogroundwork around what we haveto do. I imagine motions anddirectives that have been agreed upon and will be partof this conversation.
Member Green: Will our leadsbe compensated for their timeif they have to comethroughout the whole process?I guess these are 12 meetingsoutside the regular writing committee meetings. What doesthat look like? 
Dr. Meghan Everette: We haveparticipantcostsand this moves it out of howit is currently detailed inlegislation. I assume theywould have the same kinds ofparticipant support costs andSA that we do with allmembers. We try to lay out ahead of time what the timecommitment looks like. We givethem appropriate compensation.It is $30 an hour in workingtime. That is what iscurrently in our rules aroundthat, plus the travel theyneed to do.
Member Green: Okay. Do we have to approve any of thesebudgets? What does that moneycome from?
Dr. Meghan Everette: There'stechnically no moneyallocated.We've tried to input estimatedcosts in standards perotherwise, they come from available funds in teaching and learning appropriate to beused.The costs for these don't specifically come before thefloor. They are withinteaching and learning.
Chair Earl:I know we couldn't startphysical education until the beginning of July because wedidn't have funds to start itwhen it was approved. There'sa funding piece to it. Wecannot do a million standards because we don't have money todo whatever we want.
Member Green: Is there anincrease in cost for thecurriculum process with alead?
Dr. Meghan Everette: Notnecessarily. It would dependon how many writers you have.The math process has morewriters because they arecovering12 grade levels. This iscontrasted with something likesocial studies that onlypertains tosecondary or a single courselike civics. We can set to a certain number. We are makingsure if there's enoughrepresentation and expertiseto get the work done and wedon't want to pad it becauseit is expensive to do.
Member Green: Does the number change if it's a biggerwriting committee or do wekeep it to one?
Dr. Meghan Everette: Are youasking about lead liaisons?
Member Green: Yes.
Dr. Meghan Everette: It iscurrently written as 2 to 3 liaisons from the reviewCommittee and we didn't specify a numberto the writing Committee. Wedidn't specify one.
Dr. Meghan Everette: Wecurrently have lead writersthat do fine tuning and brushing up. They spend moretime and we typically pay themmore because of that. Thesepeople would probably operatein the same way.
Member Green: Thank you.
Chair Earl: We could make the request if we need to putsomething into code. It sounds like we do this alittle bitbut it doesn't fill the requirement for existingstandards.
Dr. Meghan Everette:Historically it has cost 30 to$40,000 for a standards review.
Member Green: Our boardmembers are allowed to emailthe leads moving forward if weadopt this if we have specific questions comments concernscome or recommendations? I'masking because it seems thewriting committee would haveaccessibility. I want to understand what therelationship would look like.
Dr. Meghan Everette: As written the communication would happen at specifiedcollaboration points and alsobe detailed in whateveragreement gets written.Right now it is on page numberseven. One of the bulletssuggests the Lead liaisons can and should answer questionsrelated to standards atdesignated points ofinteractions. The hope is that by doing this we don'toverwhelm when they are in themiddle of their work day or attending their kids orwhatever.
Member Green: Thank you.
Chair Earl: I think we can motion at this point if someone wants to move itforward.What's the title of thedocument?
Dr. Meghan Everette: Currentstandards committeedraft process 2026.

>>(indiscernible).
Vice Chair Brinton: I move thecommittee move the Junestandards revision process dated June 2026 and forward tothe board for final approval.
Chair Earl: Any additionaldiscussion? The motion beforethe committee is the committee move the June standardsrevision process, June 2026,and forward to the full boardfor approval. All those infavor?
Vice Chair Brinton: I hopeother board members are watching and see that we moveto a ten year lengthened process.
Member Green: My vote was"aye" but I have a questionabout step number ten.
Chair Earl: We just approvedbut ask your question.
Member Green: --I want to clarify how our staffengages now. We have staff that has represented all thesesteps.Is there review committeedifferent? Where is staff instep number ten? It seemsstaff has always been thererepresenting this work. I'mwondering if they need to bepart of this step.

Dr. Meghan Everette: Step tensays the review Committee reviews the updated draft forclarity and makes any finalrecommendations to the WritingCommittee for updates.
>> I envision staff as part ofevery step and that is why they weren't called outseparately. There are stillenvisioned to be here.
Member Green: If the leadliaisonsare shouldering this processand not staff --
>> Isn't this the same as thelead writers that havepresented before the board?Meghan is shaking her head'yes'.
Dr. Meghan Everette: I think staff facilitate this all theway through as they currently do.
Chair Earl: If there isadditional comments or recommendations between nowand August, reach out toMeghan and others and see if we can come to an understanding of what would beeffective. Thank you for thedocument. That passedunanimously. Thanks, Meghan.That's been a lot of work. Iappreciate your thoughtfulwork. Next item is sensitivematerials model policy. Wewill start by going to the AAGfor limited feedback (laughs).
>> --
Chair Earl: This is trying to create a framework.
>> As a lawyer you have a safeharbor if it's in a statute. You can fall back and say thatis what the statute commands.His concern was whether thephrase could be interpreted asviewpoint discrimination. Herecommended to rephrase andofferedthe phrase "educationallyenriching." I don't want tospend a lot of time talking about viewpoint discriminationbut that was his concern.
Vice Chair Brinton:I don't remember exactly wherethese two phrases came from. 
Chair Earl: They came from me(laughs).
Vice Chair Brinton: I like"educationally enriching"because not everything isuplifting. 
Member Reale: Or it's aboutbasketball? We talked last time about reading forpleasure or fun. I appreciatethe feedback. We can put thesuggestion in there. I think a lot of the other criteriacover a lot of it already.
Chair Earl: This is a "may." Idon't mind the change, kindof. A lot of the literature wegive our kids is depressingand negative and derogatory. This isn't a recommendation that has to meet all theseareas.Other pieces aren't in thecode as well. 
>> The concern would be ifn LEA seized on the phrase andused it to exclude a book.Possibly, a plaintiff inlitigation could seize on thephrase and say it was an uplifting and you arediscriminated against myviewpoint. Just watching out in terms of litigation.
Chair Earl:Okay. Does someone want tomake the motion?
 Vice Chair Brinton: I make amotion to strike "upliftingand captivating"and replace with"educationally enriching."
Chair Earl: Any furtherdiscussion?I'm not hearing any.A number seven is under selection of materials forlibrary selection.The suggestion is to strike"uplifting and captivating"and replace with"educationally enriching."all in favor?When I looked at the document I thought we made the motionabout adding obscene animalabuse.I think it has to have theword "obscene" in front of itbecause it says that in code.There's other places where Ithink it says "animal abuse."we need it to be consistent. I want to make the motion thatwhere it says "animal abuse"it says "obscene animal abuse".
>> Page five has that.
Chair Earl:We need to make sure this is accurate anywhere it is foundin the document. I know we talked about thisbut we haven't made a motionfor this to happen. Anydiscussion?Board member Green? The amendment before the committeeis that we replace "animalabuse" with "obscene animalabuse" to match code. Allthose in favor? That passesunanimously.On page 12 under subjectivesensitive material process, number two, it says uponinitiating process, the schoolLEA administrator or designeewill conduct material reviewcommittee within a reasonabletime.I want to add that this isn'tmore than 30 days, so itcannot be six months lb. Itsays reasonable. Reasonable isgreat butif someone wants to amend theycan.
 Member Reale: I don't like theidea of a timeline becausereasonable timeis like saying you didn't doit in a reasonable time.We only meet once a month as aboard. 30 can be too tight.
Chair Earl: 45?
Member Reale:60?
Chair Earl: No. I'm not 60. Iwouldn't go beyond 45.
Member Reale: It is pulled.
Chair Earl: You are under subjective, not objective anylonger.
>> Media specialist teachingand learning. Once an initialreview happens and the twoindividuals that the LEAreview and see there's a plausible claim, student isremoved from access. Talkingabout days,this may cause concern.[previous speaker was DavinaSauthoff]
Chair Earl: You are saying itis removed during this time?
Davina Sauthoff: A positiveclaimof access removed.
Vice Chair Brinton: Does 30school days make it enoughbecause that adds inweekends.
ChairEarl: How long is it taking toget the writing committee to meet?This is the subjective materials piece.
Davina Sauthoff: I'm not surehow long it takes. I hear bits and pieces from the field thatit is difficult to pull a committee together. Parentsare busy and faculty and staffare busy. We don't want todrag it out forever. We are also cognizant of thetime schedules of everyone.
 Vice Chair Brinton: I saw thatrated books.org is free to th-- ratedbooks.org is available to the public.
Davina Sauthoff: The previousAAG talked about this.Potentially, this is not anindustry standard website thatreviews books the wayprofessional industry reviews titles. They may look at adifferent lens than we want atitle to be reviewed at. Does anyone remember this titlewith our AAG?
Chair Earl: If I rememberright it was that they mightbe using a variety ofresources. I cannot rememberthe specifics but anindividual person versus an organization. That doesn'tprohibit someone from usingseveral sources to reviewtheir content. You can go to several sources. There arequite a few out there right now. I think a lot ofdistricts are aware ofdifferent resources. We have some on our page and there areothers out there. It is aneasy thing to go on and get ageneral feel and go from thereif you are interested in it. Idon't know where we are at.60, 30 days. Reasonable timeneeds a parameter.30 school days? Something likethat?
Member Reale: I like leavingit as reasonable.We need accountability. Iprefer that.
Member Green: I don't mind 60days. That works.
 Vice Chair Brinton: What if itis summertime and it was triggered in June and no oneis in school? It needs to beschool days.30 school days allows for 50or so with weekends.
Chair Earl:I'm going to move that then. Not more than 30 school daysis what I want to officiallymove. People can modify ifthey want to.Any further discussion tothat? The motion before thecommittee is that theOn page 12, the words"reasonable time" be replacedwith "not more than 30 schooldays."we are replacing "withinreasonable time" with "not morethan 30 school days." Thispassed 4 in favor and MemberReale opposed. I think I hadone more.On page 18, under appealscommittee will evaluate a pillbased on each of originalclaim and may make finalrecommendation by majorityvote as follows. Under number two it says for subjectivesensitive material claims,Committee will evaluate whether material taken as awhole constitutes pornographicor indecent material under statutory factor Balancingstandardsor -- this is an additionafter that -- other criteriaconsidered under reviewCommittee. That is not the only reason. It could be vulgarity or aor offensive to a particularcommunity.Or other criteria consideredby the review committee.
Vice Chair Brinton: I wonder in the sentence where it says that the committee can make adetermination that material issubjective sensitive, thematerial will be removed or isnot subjective. Is that clearenough?Or maybe it should be wasfound not subjective andremains.
>> (indiscernible).
Chair Earl: It is kind ofclumsy.
Vice Chair Brinton: maybe asemicolon is needed because itis a long sentence.[background conversations] 
Chair Earl: Switch "and" and"or"? 
Member Reale: Can I see theamendment up there?
>> Maybe add material at the endof subjective so it Doesn't sit there.
Member Reale: I'm wondering,Chair Earl, if you could add"and" or the committee couldmake it a recommendation. Iwant to make sure we're not adding ambiguity and keepingto the policy. I don't wantpeople to be like I'm a BostonRed Sox fan and this book isabout the New York Yankees. I don't want people to be ableto pull things. If we can add-- 
Vice Chair Brinton: -- thatsomething is in the code. 
Member Reale: -- or in the policy.
Chair Earl: This is theappeals Committee. They will look at what was considered bythe review committee.
Member Reale: What'sconsidered by the review Committee is in the policy of the code.
Chair Earl: Are you trying tosay review committee from thepolicy?
 Member Reale: I want to makesure that this doesn't read as anything else you may want toconsider.
Chair Earl: It says review Committee. In appeal you lookat what has already takenplace. It should be. Doesthere need to be clarity here?The review committee issending it to the appeal. --
Member Reale:I'm concerned they could useany explanation for removing abook, like a considerationthat isn't in the code.
Chair Earl: Yeah. we can spellit all out. 
>>You have limited the appealcommittee -- 
Member Reale: Okay. 
>> You are not being allowed toadd new criteria.
Chair Earl: Go ahead and wewill circle back.
Davina Sauthoff: In the bodyof the paragraph it says thecommittee must consider a, B,and c. "D" is the othercriteria you're talking about.Talking about the appeal, Iunderstand what you are tryingto do but we say subjective sensitive material. There is alegal definition of subjectivesensitive material. A, now new"D", isn't part of thedefinition of subjective sensitive material. I want to make sure everyone is aware ofthis.
Chair Earl: You can take other things into consideration. Weare telling the review committee this. When we getback here we are saying onlythese things and not the othercriteria. They can take intoconsideration other criteria under subjective, notobjective.
Davina Sauthoff: I'm wonderingif we need to clarify thoseitems, violence isn't part ofthe definition of subjectivesensitive material. They can determine something to not besubjective but it may be something we don't want in theschool library. Does that makesense? D, where it says violence and pervasivevulgarity, those aren't part of the definition.
Chair Earl: They can takethose into consideration. At the end I don't want to say ifit meets these two that theother consideration taken intoconsideration could still belooked at as a possible -- 
Davina Sauthoff: -- yeah. 
Chair Earl: (laughs) any othercomments or thoughts?
Vice Chair Brinton: A also hasanimal abuse so we needobscene in there as well.
Chair Earl: If we did "or other criteria considered bythe review Committee" are we still within parameters?
>> Yes.
Member Reale: I want to makesure there's no ambiguity.
Chair Earl: That is why I threw review in there. It hasto be narrowly considered because they are an appealbody.[background conversations]This is what the motion wouldbe. On page 18, afterstatutory factor balancingstandards,
>> (indiscernible).
Chair Earl:For a subjective sensitivematerial claims, the appeals committee will evaluatewhether the material taken as a whole constitutespornographic or inappropriatematerial or criteriaconsidered by review committee. The committee maymake a determination that the material is subjectivesensitive material and the material will be removed orthe committee may make a determination that thematerial isn't subjective. The final determination of theAppeals Committee will becommunicated to the requester and appropriate employeeswithin ten days of thedetermination. This will addin " or material considered bythe Review Committee" and " orthe Committee may make adetermination the material isnot subjective." anyadditional discussion? Allthose in favor? That passesunanimously. That's all I had.I don't know if there areother recommendations. If not,we can move the policyforward. 
Member Wood: I had one quickquestion. It is on the objective where we take out the requirement for them tohave the book as a whole. Wesay that they may providethe book.Sorry.
Chair Earl:Okay. You are on page ten?
Member Wood: It did say"access to the material beingchallenged " and "may beaccess."on a committee I sat on -- you are saying that this is inhere and it's out.
Chair Earl: You can beprovided access if you want.
Member Reale: It is like you are reading the book withoutthe context because you are only getting certainsections.
Chair Earl: It is the objective andnot the subjective being thedifference.You can make a motion if youwant.Because it is the objective I personally like where it isat.
Member Wood: Have you sat onthat committee?
Chair Earl: I have not.
Member Wood: I will leave it.
Chair Earl: Anyone want tomake a motion?
Member Reale: I have one morequestion.We added "Violence, pervasive, selfharm." I'm trying to keep itnarrowly to the law I'mwondering-- maybe the AAG can chime in.The interpretation of thesegets tricky. This is why we'vespent so much time on this.I'm wondering if this can beconfusing for LEAs if they are trying to understand thesepieces.
Chair Earl: You are sayingthat you are having a committee review this and notan individual. You have acommittee that has to argue whether this does or doesn't.
Member Reale: "violence" is sobroad. We haven't vetted thisthrough like we have with thelaw as to these definitions. Idon't likeputting in things that are up to being interpreted indifferent ways. I think we'veseen this cause a lot of confusion.
Chair Earl: Once again, it isa committee that is meeting.

Member Reale: I understandthat.

Davina Sauthoff: I want to tagon and ask the AAG, on pagenumber seven, we talk aboutsensitive material and weadded the line. If thecommittee adds in violence, pervasive vulgarity, and selfharm as the criteria using toremove a title under a subjective sensitive materialreview, if they say that it issubjective sensitive material because it has violence,pervasive vulgarity, or selfharm -- which is in part ofthe legislative definition --if the law decides it has to be removed through thedistrict but the committeesays it is subjective becauseit is violence, vulgarity, or self harm and want to move it to high school, can they dothis even though they are reviewing for subjective andthe law says it has to beremoved district wide? I'mconcerned about the age appropriateness title.
Chair Earl: You said it is going up to.
Davina Sauthoff: If the lawsays it is determined toremoved by a committee it isautomatically removed districtwide, including high school.
>> It should probably be gradelevel removal if it isn't determined all the way.
>> Was the definition forsubjective?
>> It starts 53 G andnumberone H iiiso subjective material constitutes pornographic orindecent material as definedin section 765 C 208, materialharmful to minors undersection 765 C 101, materialpornographic and includes certain fondling or othertouching under subsection -- 
>> Can we look at 76 5c?
Davina Sauthoff: Harmful tominors under C 101 saysquality of any description ofrepresentation or any form ofsexual misconduct masochisticabuse, sexual assignment, animal crushing, when taken asa whole appeals to the sexualinstincts of minors, as patently offensive toprevailing standards in thestandards and iii taken as awhole doesn't have serious --minors.
>>Where is the --
Davina Sauthoff: It saysserious -- for minors based on-- and not anything else.
>> That is kind of what I'mreading there.Are we pulling the referenceto violence? Is that groundedin statute and --76 5c 10 is a statute with alot of stuff in it.Material that includes thisstuff can be subjective.How do we ground "violence" in statute?
Member Reale: That was myexact question. 
Chair Earl: We've added "othersensitive content," not"material."
>> There's no comma there.Elsewhere in the statute do wehave discussion of violenceand how it relates to thisdefinition of subjective?I'm not sure if I'm answeringthe question.[background conversations] 

Chair Earl: You don't have toanswer today (laughs) we areputting you on the spot and itwould probably be good to do amore thorough look through. Ifyou are saying take "violence"out -- 
Member Reale: -- but it cold-- it could mean that. 
Chair Earl: --Districts could decide what issensitive for students.
>> I want to look at thedefinition of "sensitive."Obviously, you are grounded in animal abuse and reference itin your rule. With otherthings how do we use them?There is weird stuff like "flagellation or torture by aperson who is nude." that isoddly specific. "Violence" in such a broad term that I'm notsure how to give guidance. 
Vice Chair Brinton: There are instances in war books andthings about history. You have to learn about it because itis part of history. What is the differentiation here thatwill set us apart?
Chair Earl: I would argue that's why you put a group ofparents together and educatorsin your community. That is theimportance of that committee,versus what we are saying.We can get additional feedbackbetween now and our next.
Member Reale: I was going tosay part of the reason age appropriateness was in therewas because -- 
Chair Earl: -- there's nodefinition of age appropriateness.
Member Reale: I can take thisto full board and we can havethe discussion there but we've spent a lot of time on therule. I think what I took fromthat was anything that isambiguous or vague or can beinterpreted in a different way by a different group orsomeone within that parentgroup -- I want to keep it clear and within the law thathas been vetted so much to make sure definitions areclear. I don't like addinganything beyond the code or definitions we have.
Chair Earl: Ageappropriateness isn't in the code.
Member Reale: I'm not arguingabout age appropriateness. I think that's why we have it inthere. There could be a parentgroup or review committee thatcould argue about thedefinition. Another instances, they could say there's adefinition of this being acertain thing. It's not that I want violent books inchildren's hands thatshouldn't have it. I'm saying this causes potential confusion because of theambiguity.
Member Wood:Sitting on committees we had to have pre training and theentire training was based oncode. Here's the code, here'swhat it says. It is clear whenyou open books and start reading, this is dead on whatthe code says and this is out.I had a parent screaming at mebecause I voted to remove a book. I said that this is thelaw. We are obeying the law. Ihad something to fall back on.
ChairEarl: Okay, whatever the bodywants to do. I think we are now opening it up for thingsthat we will see more codenext year and stuff.
Davina Sauthoff: I would addthat I agree 100%. A committee can come together and evaluatea book for whatever. I wasconcerned about lumping thatin with subjective because itadds requirements that we maynot really intend to do with a book that has some violence init. That was my concern. When I was thinking about the modelpolicy, I was thinking aboutwhat schools use. They look atage appropriateness and violence and they evaluatethat. We do not want it to be under requirements ofsensitive materials because itwill have an unintendedconsequence for our studentsaccessing literature. It really will. If we arethinking about war books, biographies, and things wewant our high schoolers toaccess, that is my thought.
Chair Earl: I wasn't thinking about those books. This is whyyou have a committee because they are are books out therethat are extremely violent that have nothing to do withwar or are derogatory towardsthe human body.
 Vice Chair Brinton: Is it already covered underobjective?
Chair Earl: Not underobjective. 
Member Reale: I will make theamendment and we can vote onit and move on. Under A/D -- Isent you an amendment, Leah,to change language in A/D. Page 14? May consider othercriteria found harmful underminorsunder animal abuse-- may consider other materialharmful to minors. I'm taking out the pieces that we don'thave.Change that to "obscene animal abuse." 
Chair Earl: That falls underthe law. You wouldn't want toinclude that. You can add "other criteria found to beharmful to minors." now you'vetaken out these othercriteria. 
Member Reale:You can take out "harmful tominors."Take the highlighted part out. 
Chair Earl:Even if we had two sections, one specific two sensitivematerials and another specificto subjective sensitivematerials. Then there would be one that is harmful to minorssection.
 Member Wood: The interestingthing about referring back tothe code is it is patently offensive to standards inadult community as a whole for what is suitable material forminors. They can go back and read the book. Instead of uscalling out things that arenot statutorily based, they look at this and can use it asa fallback. This is patentlyoffensive.Persuasive vulgarity ispatentlyoffensive. We aren't limiting it to words we decided areincorrect but putting it backto code that says that thisgroup finds this book patentlyoffensive, whatever that maybe, we are putting it back tothe hands of our community todefine patently offensive andthis is based on code.
 Chair Earl: I'm going to haveto consider. I'm not ready tomake a motion to this.
 Member Reale: Can I adjustthis? I will make a motion soit is on there for next time.Also, on page seven 4a. I don't know if you can put onpage 14 and 7a because itreferences it the same way. This changes language in bothplaces to be the same andconsistent.To be amended -- that'sperfect.
 >>For clarity on what you wouldlike the AAG to look at, assessing -- 
Chair Earl: -- provisions whether we can actuallyindicate vulgarity could beone of those things.
>>Violence, pervasive vulgarity, and self harm?
Chair Earl: Yeah. Even how these can be considered inhere. If they are not underthe specific definition, canthey be considered in a, B, and C thing?
Vice Chair Brinton: We aresaying "may" and not "shall."
 Member Wood: I would like tomove to amend and add "isPatently offensive to prevailing standards in theadult community" after"minors".[background conversations] 
Member Wood: That's after"minors" and before"referenced". 
Chair Earl: We can put theMiller test in. That is whatthat is in essence.I think that's what it says inthere.They put the Miller test in.[laughing in the background]
Chair Earl: Is that it? Isthat what you want?
>> (indiscernible).Right now it is sayingstandards in the adult community is being referencedin this section.As long as it is in code itcan say that. I just wanted tomake sure. As long as it is incode and they can find it withthe reference -- 
Member Reale: -- this is afriendly. I'm fine with thatamendment to the motion.
Chair Earl:As referenced in the code --it's only patently offensiveif it's referenced in thecode? Only then would it beconsidered offensive? That'swhat it sounds like. It wouldnarrow the scope once again.
Member Wood: I'm not trying to narrow the scope. I'm sayingthe community gets to determine -- 
Chair Earl: -- I know but I'mtrying to make sure -- 
>> That's fine. I'm looking at76 5c 101 which is anadditional basis. 
Chair Earl: It is sayingthings offensive in this codeand section as opposed to things -- 
>> -- I think after "adultcommunity, " -- now I'm Messing with someone'samendment. I don't necessarilywant to do that.
Chair Earl: The motion byboard member Reale is an pagenumber -- may consider othercriteria found to be harmfulto minors and is patently offensive to prevailingstandards in the adultcommunity or is referenced insection 76 5c101. Anyadditional discussion orthoughts?Personally, I'm holding thisout there. I need moreresearch before I move this forward and make sure itdoesn't narrow the scope somuch. I would love additionalfeedback from the AAG on theimpacts even if we moved another section and what thatwould look like. Any othercomments? All those in favor?Opposed?That fails.I would like a full analysisof this amendment here. It mayhit the spot we want it. Iwant to make sure that's whereit is at before that form.That fails. For were Reale andWood.Any other discussion?Looking for motion to move itforward.
>> -- 
Chair Earl: Any additionaldiscussion to the motion? Motion before the committee isthat the committeerepeal the 2022 model policy and adopt the 2026 modelpolicy draft three on first reading and four two board forfinal approval onSecond and final reading. Allin favor? It passesunanimously.We have to do that first.Sorry. Someone has to keep meon track. We have to get through these pretty quick. Doyou want to talk about that?Board member Green asked tobring back information on timeline.
Davina Sauthoff: Before we dive into the specifictimeline, I want to share important clarification fromthe internal audit departmentregarding motion language. Toalign with board rule -- andprotect formal definition of aaudit, they asks to adjust theterm to "monitoring review"instead of "audit" unless wewant the audit team to do thatthemselves. We broke down the timelineinto four different phases, afiscal phase, supply chain andprocurement of materials, and compliance and training. Thisis what librarians anddistricts provide for training. The final phasewould be the synthesis andevaluation of that datacollection.I don't believe any of thetime needed by the districtsand LEAs to provide input would be at the librarianlevel. This is unless theremay be a charter school thatdoesn't have acharter position that has thatinformation. Phase one fiscalanalysis and phase two --This already was an extensiveamount of time there. It will be easier to get all thisinformation from all thedistricts and charter schoolsfor training.
Member Wood: If we pursue something like this, wouldthis be an appropriate use of discretionary funds?
Chair Earl: Good question. Ialready asked that. I thinkthis would be.We could ask for additionalfunding to help with this. There is someone we couldcontract with or hire on toassist with this. Are youcalling a friend? (laughs)You're good. I think we could. I don't know if that pieceneeds to go to the full boardand we can start.
Member Wood: I could onlysupport this if we knowthere's funding. As many staffas we've lost over time with different changes in code thattook funding away, I could notapprove this without feedbackfrom our superintendent. May Superintendent Voorhiescould speak to this. Do wehave capacity and funding tostart this on our own?
 Vice Chair Brinton: And isthere enough flag or reason todo a comprehensive audit ofevery school district?
Chair Earl: It's not an audit,it is monitoring.
 >> This is a verycomprehensive monitoringreview.It would take a lot ofcapacity. You can see thenumber of hours that it wouldtake of ours, which is onething come up but the numberof LEA hours it would take toimplement.We can work out the detailsrelated to our capacity but itwould be very beneficial as wetalked about previously, tobring in capacity through aprofessional servicesagreement.What we didn't talk about wasthe total number of LEA hoursrequired. That's a lot of capacity forthem.
 Member Wood: When we dosomething like this is there away to use discretionary fundsto support LEAs?
>>If people outside the agencydo work for us, we have apolicy about how we cancompensate them for that.Obviously, they have to be available but we have to havea policy.
Chair Earl: Board memberGreen, do you want to weigh inand give us some thoughts? Youmight be muted.
Member Green: Sorry aboutthat. First, I want to saythank you for what's in frontof us. I know this is a heavylift. It is something I'vebeen following for a longtime.My fear is if we don't understand what is in front ofus,we will see laws come out thatare reactionary and may not fully understand the dynamicthat existswith the library industry andthe public education system.This is why I believe 100%that it is important that we understand what this lookslike now at a state level.Moving forward from that, Ibelieve we will see a moreproactive approach to how ourlibraries are curated. I'm insupport of moving forward,recognizing this takes timeand will cost money but doesprovide benefit to everyonearound these subject.If we could move forward withthis, that would be fantasticand we might start with phaseone. Then we can begin theprocess of working out otherlogistics. This way we can getgoing on this. Time is of theessence.
Vice Chair Brinton: Can I aska question to Davina? Thegoals are good to stop thevendors and booksellers at theFront end from sellingmaterials to our library that don't meet the brightstandards. Do we have a processin placethat stop books being sold to us thatdon't meet Utah law?
 Davina Sauthoff: We don'tcurrently. Member Brinton lastsession talked aboutTexas law that got struck downas unconstitutional this makesme a little hesitant without legal counsel and guidance asto what a policy may look likeor a rule.
Chair Earl: In talking withboard member Green, and I kindof agree, it is understandinghow the book system works.This is the question here.This was more intensive than Ienvisioned but that's okay.I thought Debbie Davis musthave written this (laughs)this is a compliment.
 Davina Sauthoff: I'm ready tobe on the auditing team anyDebbie asks. Go ahead, boardmember Green.
Member Green:Phases one and two are super important. We have tounderstand the contracts thatexist and the funding. We haveto understand supply chain andprocurement. I've tried toexplain and to highlight this. I think we've done a prettygood job here on key focusareas. We have to understandthe acquisition pipeline. Wehave to identify if there arerecurring sources of -- and have to refine procurementsafeguards. We have to strengthen communication withvendors and organizations. Weneed to understand thisthrough vendor transparencyand industry influences. Theargument has been raised thatwhat is available drives the availability of what isactually purchased.I want to understand theprimary organizations andsuppliers that supply, curate, and distributematerials to the libraries and procure a pathway throughwhich materials move frompublishers to the library,including publishers, distributors, revieworganizations, and collectiondevelopment services. I knowthis is a lot.To understand this is pivotalin the relationships. It isone of the biggest relationships that exist inindustry versus publiceducation outside of --procurement. I'm aware ofupcoming legislation where the online procurement of booksand material-- you have your productnumber. I will go extreme here but this is actuallyhappening. You can accessdrugs through some of theseonline sources. That isflagged and taken off. A newnumber is assigned to that andthe item is back online within24 hours. We have documentedproof of this. This is a system within itselfand I think we have an obligation to understand whatwe are working with, especially with technologymoving forward. Vendors andorganizations play a huge part and I want us to understand what these relationships looklike. I think the mostproductive thing now is tounderstand if funding isneeded and how we go aboutmoving forward. I don't want this to be delayed. I at leastwant to have an action that wecan start with and continuedevelop and work out.
Chair Earl:We looked at costs associatedwith this.If we had a board meeting inJuly --- I'm not suggestingthis -- we could have iton the agenda then. We couldsuggest a fund of 50,000 to60,000 that covers staffingfor districts. This is not areimbursement. It is a supportcost. It could also -- someoneon a contractual basis to work with staff to do some of thiswork.
Member Green: That is good. Wecan move this forward and havethe discussion, say, at thenext board meeting in August.What could we expect? Is there anything reasonable that wecould get started in the meantime?
Chair Earl: Maybe you couldtalk to that, Davina, becauseI don't know times and obligations. There are partsof this that maybe could bestarted. But I don't have that information here.
Davina Sauthoff: Without anyfunding --
Chair Earl: Can I make asuggestion? Can you meet withLeah or whoever is yoursupervisor and send us, thecommittee, some things you caninitially get going? I don't know what your commitments are because schoolis out. We can look at theseprocesses prior to fullfunding. Does that sound reasonable?
Member Green:I've been trying to researchorganization influences andhow this other -- works. I'vecome across organizations thatexist and help make our publiclibrary functional. You haveKirkus Reviews, PublishersWeekly, National Council ofTeachers in English, societyfor Education and Technology.-- junior library Guild,Ingram content group, Bakerand Taylor, and otherScholastic publishers likeHarper and Penguin. Would it be helpful if I sent these toyou? That is the specific lane I'm looking at. I'm looking atwhat these specificrelationships look like.I don't know if you wrote this into supply chain andprocurement part of whatyou've given us and I'm asking, because if I need tomake a motion now I can. If weare flexible then I'm more than happy to share what I'vepersonally collected andresearched as to what isbest.
Davina Sauthoff: I'm always open tomore information. Please share. I'm familiar with thesenames you mentioned.
 Member Green: I don't know howthe committee feels if I needto put this into anamendment.
Chair Earl: When you send something forward send it to thecommittee as well. Does thatmake sense so we are in the loop?
Member Green: Absolutely. Ifwe want to look at phase two, distribution center technicalprocessing. It saysinvestigating -- services. Aperson I spoke with mentioned some of these organizationscreate shelf ready packages.For a $10,000, you get this many books and we already haveit listed. You can browsethrough it quickly and itshows up. There are ways thatlibraries are stocked withbooks. This is another level Iwould love to understand andhow the industry influences what and how these books showup in our libraries. I will goahead and put that together and send it out to thecommittee if that is okay with you.
Chair Earl: Okay. That's fine.You can send that on.
Member Reale: I was going to comment before we vote. Iappreciate this and thanks forputting the work together. This is something that can bereally interesting and usefulfor us for sure.I look at the bigger pictureof the multiple laws that have came out and the changes insensitive material laws. Ikeep going back to ourlibrarians.I feel like we don't have thetime and resources for this kind of work and I don't feelit is necessary.We already have so manyprocurement laws and rules and policies in place as a state.When I hire someone from the public sector and they come towork with me at college I jokethat there's 10,000 things we need to do before you get thelunch box for the meeting. We work for the state and theseare taxpayer dollars and it'simportant to make sure we use these dollars properly protectthe work we can do here can be interesting but I don't thinkwe have the capacity. It ishard for me to put this on even having been on audit for the last four years. There's alot of work for LEAs to dothis. It is hard for me to support this because I don'tthink they have the capacityat this time. I trust ourlibrarians that they are procuring the right kinds of books. I totally understandwhere you are coming from,Member Green, and think thisis really thoughtful. From a big picture perspective Icannot support this.
 Member Green: I appreciatethat feedback if I canrespond. I know that this isso big. I'm thinking about 32books and all the effort it takes from all thesecommittees from the state From the top all the way to thebottom, left, right, and center, that have this burdenplaced on them. I think themain goal is that you focus on communicating clearprocurement expectations and legal requirements to vendorsand organizations that dobusiness within Utah schools.To understand and communicatethis clearly, I think will save people time in thefuture. I'm not seeing thisgoing away. I think things aregetting better. This would streamline bettercommunication for that.One more thing --there's messaging that if youwish to market, procure, or sell materials to Utahschools, you need to understand Utah legalstandards and create tools that help schools comply withthose. If we develop that, we will be in a great place.
Chair Earl: Okay. We are looking at technical questionshere. Did we get anythingresolved?
Member Reale:Will you recognize MemberReale and Green's greatdiscussion? (laughs). 
Chair Earl:Yes, you had great discussion.We are just figuring somethingout here. We have one more item to go to. We will setthis aside. We are trying tomake sure we are trying to ask.Long licensing is having aJuly meeting. We can requestleadership to make sure it's in action item. That is theproblem we are running into.It wasn't noticed.We will have to see if this ison the agenda. Maybe we request that committee putsthis on lawn licensing so wecan have a vote behind it. --law and licensing. Movingforward, the policyrecommendation, the monitoring-- how do we title this - 
 Member Green:
school library monitoring timeline.
 Chair Earl: Board memberGreen, do you want to make themotion and ask that we spend 50,000 to $60,000 ofdiscretionary funds and hammer out this more with Scott Jonesand to make sure we have theright amount?Why don't you do 60,000 and we can request this as amended ifit changes?
Member Green: For clarification, last month'smeeting where the motion wasmade, why was that bumpedunderneath? Is it because it was under sensitive materialsor should it be its own agendaitem because the motion was made?
Chair Earl: It was put under sensitive materials but wasn'tcited as a separate action item as far as requestingfunding for it.
 Member Green: Okay.
Chair Earl: Does that makesense Calumet
?
Member Green: Yes.
Chair Earl: Sorry. That was an unintentional oversight on mypart.
Member Reale: I move that wemove the library monitoringtimeline forward to law andLicensing's July meetingrequesting$60,000 in funding fromdiscretionary funds. Do I needto clarify and to move forwardto full board in the August2026 meeting?
Chair Earl: Yeah. That wouldwork.Let me read it and if there'sany discussion. After "library" we need"monitoring." that the board move--that the committee has board leadership to add thecomprehensive school library monitoring timeline to theJuly law and LicensingCommittee meeting requesting$60,000 from the discretionaryfunds and move the timeline forward to the full boardmeeting in August. All infavor? Only opposed is MemberReale.We have one more item.
>> Utah special Advisory panelis one of your advisorycommittees. 50% of members areparents of individuals with disabilities or individualswith disabilities. This yearthey determined at the beginning of the school yearthat they have two prioritiesthey want to look at in depthat and possibly make recommendations to the boardregarding. The first in depthpriority was special education teacher recruitment andretention. They spent a couplemeetings reviewingall of the cactus data we have about special educationteachers and the multiple UtahEducation Policy Centerstudies that they've done for us related to specialeducation teachersatisfaction, work load,pre-service experiences, and then reviewed our Apple special education program indepth. After all the reviewand discussion, they arebringing forward three recommendations forward foryou to receive using boardmember Davis's word yesterday-- the motion says except but it doesn't mean that you aremotioning, it means you arereceiving the recommendations. There's context for each ofthis but I won't read that. The first recommendation isthat it is recommended USBErecommendsspecial tool to supportspecial education teachers. In the research, the number onething that is correlated with retention is administratorsupport. This isrecommendation number one recommendation number two isthatUSEAPproposestools to reduce paperworkburden. The reason for therecommendation is the paperwork burden is the leastfavorite part of being aspecial Ed teacher according to the research.Recommendation number three is thatwhen the state Board ofEducation considers proposedlegislation to enhance specialeducation support for allstudents, USEAPrecommendsUSBE applies an intentional and specific inquiry processto ensure the legislativeaction will support studentswith disabilities, to make sure students are not leftout.
 Chair Earl: I will give you aquick rundown of what Ithought. We can receive this?We can make a motion toreceive this? I recommend weare currently reviewing leadership standards and makesure the number one recommendation is stronglyincluded in their.-- I'm not sure that wordingis correct. Maybe that there are standards that reflectthis recommendation. That is amotion I would make.That the standards reflectrecommendation number one.Any discussion to this?I will make this motion thatthe new USBE leadershipstandards reflectrecommendation one. We did public comment and theyhaven't come to us. 

Vice Chair Brinton: Whether they reflect all three.Teacher burnout is a hugeissue. I've heard thatespecially special education teachers are overwhelmed withhomework with 27 students in the class but it's not considered a full classbecause there are 28 students.-- because there are not 28students.
Chair Earl: Can we amend thisto USEAPrecommendations? Maybe that ismore broad.
Vice Chair Brinton: I like all of these recommendations andthey should be incorporated. Educators should be expected to be in the classroom. Canthey do paperwork and fill inrecommendations more than theteachers?
Chair Earl: --are you guys good with that?The motion before us is thatSarah shares her sandwich witheveryone (laughing in room) --that the new USB leadershipstandards are reflected in theUSEAP standards. All in favor?Any other discussion? I'mlooking at recommendationnumber two. What can we dothere? Is there a motion orare we working on that?
>> I'm happy to work on that.This recommendation came inbefore we submitted therecommendation to USEAP. Wehave to leave time for a public comment and therecommendation came after that. I can set up the budgetfor us to be able to do this. I've said many times beforethat if we make more than a 10% adjustment in any of thelines, we have to go back to-- 
 Chair Earl: One otherpossibility. If you wereinterested or someone in yourdepartment, we have money forresearch and development, innovative ideas. This is anarea where we could be innovative and developsomething that is productive.
>> I can talk to Deputy Jonesabout that as well.
Chair Earl: Would it be innovative to developsomething beneficial?Look at that in we can submitit to finance so it doesn'ttake a long time. Any othercomments? I'm wondering if there are otherrecommendations.The motion is that thecommittee accept the USEAPrecommendations in the memotitles, 2026USEAPmemo teacher recruitment andretention, for consideration. The motion before thecommittee is that thecommittee accept the USEAP recommendation in the memotitled, 2026 USEAPmemo teacher recruitment andretention. All in favor? Thatpasses unanimously. I'mlooking for a final motion. Motion to adjourn. All thosein favor?
Member Green: Thank you,[NO AUDIO][meeting has been adjourned]