[00:00:00] with you uh this afternoon uh primary reason for bringing this forward uh is changes to uh
[00:00:08] hb that came from hb 374 in the most recent legislative session uh the legislature transferred
[00:00:15] licensing authority for audiologists and speech language pathologists from usbe to doppel and
[00:00:22] so we need to make some changes to 301 to cover that essentially what is being uh proposed is that
[00:00:30] we would phase out. We would stop issuing those license areas. And then we've had to make some changes to the rule to accomplish that. Draft one is the proposed draft for that. We had asked board member Longacre last time to make a slight technical change in committee to that rule.
[00:00:55] If we could get somebody to make that, we're just proposing a slight change on the background checks.
[00:01:01] It changes the timing of background checks.
[00:01:03] If there might be someone who could make that motion, it is on screen.
[00:01:07] But we're happy to answer questions you have about that rule.
[00:01:10] I can make that motion.
[00:01:14] Go ahead, Member Hall.
[00:01:15] Make the motion that the committee continue and approve R-277-301.
[00:01:21] Educator licensing draft 1 on first reading and forward to the board for continuation and approval.
[00:01:25] on second and final reading just because we're online let's just take a vote uh voice vote
[00:01:33] uh vice chair bollinger can i have a point of order chair um i i think that before so with that
[00:01:39] it sounds like member hall made the motion for the whole rule but it sounds like we also
[00:01:45] want to maybe consider this amendment before we pass the rule yes am i understanding that
[00:01:50] correctly oh yeah i thought he did make the amendment he made the motion on the whole rule
[00:01:56] yes oh yes chair so yeah so i screen member hall yes yes okay okay let me let me do that thank you
[00:02:06] man i'm sorry you said it was on screen but that wasn't typed up yet um at the bottom okay all right
[00:02:12] i want to make the motion to amend um that the committee strike two on line 428 and insert five
[00:02:20] Okay, the motion before the committee is that the committee strike two on the, excuse me, on line 428 and insert five.
[00:02:37] Vice Chair Bollinger?
[00:02:40] Yes.
[00:02:41] Your vote?
[00:02:42] Aye.
[00:02:43] Member Hall?
[00:02:44] Aye.
[00:02:45] And I vote in support of it as well.
[00:02:50] I'm here. I'm here. Chair Kerry, I'm here.
[00:02:53] Oh. Thank you, Member Lear. Okay. That passes unanimously. Four in favor. Member Longacre missing.
[00:03:05] Are there any questions about
[00:03:08] I'm not seeing any hands.
[00:03:21] Am I the only one that can't hear?
[00:03:22] My wife has, can you repeat that, Joe?
[00:03:25] It didn't come through clearly.
[00:03:27] Yeah, I just asked if there were any questions from board members.
[00:03:33] And if not, just looking for someone to make the motion on 301.
[00:03:37] I'll make that motion again.
[00:03:39] Okay.
[00:03:40] I make the motion that the committee continue and approve R-277-301,
[00:03:46] educator licensing draft 1 as amended on first reading and forth to the board
[00:03:50] for continuation and approval on second final reading.
[00:03:53] Okay.
[00:03:54] The motion before the committee is that the committee continue and approve R-277-301,
[00:04:00] educator licensing draft 1 as amended.
[00:04:03] on first reading and forward to the board for continuation and approval on second and final
[00:04:09] reading. We'll just take a voice vote. Vice Chair Bollinger? Yes. Member Lear? Yes. And Member Hall?
[00:04:22] Yes. I also vote in the affirmative. That passes unanimously. Board Member Longacre missing.
[00:04:33] We postponed item number one, waiting for member leader.
[00:04:41] Let's go to item 1.2, which is R277-322,
[00:04:48] Local Education Agency, LEA, Codes of Conduct.
[00:04:52] Because this is, it started as my application
[00:05:00] It's my understanding now that the committee has worked on, collaboratively worked on a new draft, but because I was the board member who initially brought this to the committee, I would like to step down from the position of chair as this matter is considered and ask that Vice Chair Vollinger handle this.
[00:05:30] matter. Is that okay, Vice Chair? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'd be happy to. And being as it is a
[00:05:37] draft that you originally brought forward, would you like to speak to that as we get into talking
[00:05:42] about it? Yeah, I know that we've, thank you, Vice Chair. I know that we've spoken about this at
[00:05:48] length, both on the record and as a group of committee members without the presence of Board
[00:05:58] remember Hall could not make that meeting. There was a draft that was put in. I just want to bring
[00:06:04] to everyone's attention that, and this was included in the post-it draft, I just want to make sure
[00:06:12] all committee members are aware of it. And Elise, do you have those lines? Was it 114 through 119
[00:06:20] that they were struck
[00:06:22] in one draft that
[00:06:24] was sent.
[00:06:27] They're in.
[00:06:28] Okay. I just wanted to make sure everybody
[00:06:30] was aware. I lied. No, maybe
[00:06:32] not. I lied.
[00:06:34] I think maybe it just didn't get
[00:06:36] uploaded.
[00:06:38] I saw the men, I
[00:06:40] thought. Yeah, let me check real quick
[00:06:42] and get it uploaded. That was the
[00:06:44] last one we sent out to the group.
[00:06:48] But, Vice Chair, outside of that change, I believe that the language reflects the thoughts and working consensus at the time of the members who attended.
[00:07:04] And I don't have anything else to say.
[00:07:06] Thank you.
[00:07:07] Okay, thank you, Chair.
[00:07:07] So, would you, are you asking or wanting to make a motion on this draft regarding those lines?
[00:07:15] Yeah, I'm happy to do that.
[00:07:17] But instead of having everybody search, if everybody saw the proposed change, it would
[00:07:24] be that -- I just want to make sure it has it.
[00:07:39] Is it lines 114 through 119?
[00:07:43] Is that 11 -- I'm sorry.
[00:07:46] Can you flip back to the, yeah, my motion would be that lines 114 through 117 be restored.
[00:08:11] So it looks like the motion that you have stated and the one that is posted, I'm going
[00:08:15] i'm going to read off of what was posted so that the committee reinstate lines 114 through 117 of
[00:08:19] draft 4a does that reflect your motion chair carrie it does thank you vice chair okay and would would
[00:08:27] you like to add anything else to that before i open it up to the committee to speak to that
[00:08:31] no i i don't thank you all right member lear thanks um i've i've kind of gone back and forth
[00:08:40] on this i'm not sure of all the other concerns i have with this rule if this is my greatest one
[00:08:46] uh so i don't want to i hesitate to belabor it but i i wish i i guess i'd like the um member
[00:08:54] carrier chair carry to to give me a couple of examples maybe of what concerns he has i i think
[00:09:02] there's some um subjective language in this that concerns me not i think i know there's some
[00:09:09] subjective language in this concerns me disrupts could be in the eye of the beholder and encourages
[00:09:18] or results in are very different if results in doesn't come from encouragement i don't know that
[00:09:27] that's in a staff member's responsibility excuse me but i just maybe like to hear from
[00:09:33] Chair Carey about what, some examples of what concerns him.
[00:09:40] May I, Vice Chair?
[00:09:42] Yeah, Chair Carey, go ahead.
[00:09:43] Thank you.
[00:09:44] Yeah, I was trying to address a situation where we would have a staff member at a school or LEA encouraging planning or organizing things.
[00:10:00] an activity or event that would take place during the school day and disrupt school activities.
[00:10:07] And hopefully this language conveys that those activities would be unapproved and unacceptable.
[00:10:16] Such as? What I'm asking is what's your such as in that scenario? Vice Chair, may I?
[00:10:26] Okay. Yeah, Chair Kerry. Thank you. Again, I don't think there's a particular parameter. It would just be that and it would be unacceptable to, for any member of the staff, to encourage them or organize an event that would take place during that time that would be disruptive to the operation of the school.
[00:10:56] Do you have an example?
[00:10:58] You have a follow-up.
[00:10:59] Yes, I thank you.
[00:11:01] And through the chair, so that we can keep moving, through the chair, is that, how would you characterize disruption?
[00:11:11] If there are three students in the hall, or if a certain number of students are in the hallway, I'm just, I'm wondering what your characterization of disruption would be.
[00:11:23] Chair Carey, would you like to respond to that?
[00:11:26] Thank you, Vice Chair. You know, I don't think I have a particular scenario in mind. I think the LEA can decide if it was disruptive or not disruptive.
[00:11:38] So, again, I don't have a particular scenario, but rather just wanted to emphasize and make sure that we had language in place that would ensure that LEAs and schools understood that this kind of activity would be unacceptable.
[00:11:59] Okay. With that explanation, and I wish we had some examples because I can think of some that could go both ways. But with that, I would be comfortable with this, but I'd like to make an amendment.
[00:12:14] Yeah, well, and before you make an amendment, I do, I would like to ask AAG Cooper a question about the interpretation of this. I'm just thinking with the language where it's currently written. I know, for example, I'll give an example where I know that schools, especially high schools, if their teams make it to a state championship, let's say a basketball game or a football game, and it does happen to be in the middle of the school day, they will often plan those events.
[00:12:43] And the way that this is written, AAG Cooper, I'm wondering if we were to leave this language or reinstate that language, would that prohibit LEAs or schools from planning those activities where they could go to watch and support their teams?
[00:13:06] Is AAG Cooper on?
[00:13:11] i'm sorry um i had a another email come up say that again for me please so my question is on
[00:13:17] these lines 114 through 117 the way i'm reading it where it says a staff member may not plan
[00:13:23] organize promote encourage or participate in an unauthorized activity during the school days that
[00:13:27] disrupts instructional time or encourages or results in non-student non-attendance from
[00:13:31] scheduled classroom instruction would this language prohibit let's say a lea from or a school from
[00:13:38] allowing students to get on a bus and go to a championship football game that's in the middle
[00:13:43] of a regularly scheduled class instruction time no the way i read it is that the
[00:13:52] teacher is is doing something separate from the school on school time okay thank you for that
[00:14:00] clarification sorry about that like i said i was gonna sidetracked no you're good we appreciate
[00:14:07] you being here thank you uh member layer um and i'm looking at this and i'm trying not to overthink
[00:14:14] it too i i think that's i don't want to make too much of it but um the the two words that
[00:14:20] concern me the well two four words concern me um on line 115 when it says or participate in
[00:14:28] um because i i think a teacher could participate or a staff member of any kind could participate in
[00:14:36] by trying to send students to class. So I think that could maybe be something we'd want school
[00:14:46] employees to do. The other phrase that concerns me is on line 116, or results in. Because it might be questionable whether a
[00:15:00] staff members it was a staff members um activity uh that results in the student non-attendance
[00:15:07] or is the student non-attendance just for a completely different reason and i don't
[00:15:12] i want to be cautious about uh blaming or using this as an excuse uh for disciplining staff
[00:15:19] members when they're merely either trying to help as in or participate in or um they
[00:15:26] they're, whatever the activity is, is not the reason that students are not attending.
[00:15:35] So I'm wondering if the committee would consider deleting or participate in. I'm not sure exactly
[00:15:46] how those words, or participate might be the only word that needs to go. And then results in. And so
[00:15:53] we just have, if the staff member, I agree with you, encourages something disruptive, not a good
[00:15:59] thing. And if the staff member is doing something inappropriate in his participation, then that's
[00:16:10] also not appropriate. But I think there's a greater chance of this being used, a caution that it
[00:16:18] could be used inappropriately so i'd like to delete both those phrases and with that then i
[00:16:24] would feel comfortable with this with these were these lines being reinstated
[00:16:29] okay thank you thank you for that i just i want to make sure um deputy superintendent newey that
[00:16:36] we're tracking the amendments and in order that it's correct so if the original motion was that
[00:16:42] the committee reinstate lines 114 through 117 would then the amendment have to be that they
[00:16:47] reinstate those lines, except striking those pieces? I just want to make sure that we get
[00:16:54] those in order. Does that make sense? Member Lear's motion would be the motion to amend the
[00:16:59] amendment. So it would pre-assume that those lines are reinstated, but then we would re-strike
[00:17:08] those phrases. Okay. Okay, so we can go ahead and just move forward with Member Lear's motion.
[00:17:15] yes okay so we have a motion to amend the amendment and that the committee strike or
[00:17:22] participate in and or results in any discussion to that motion yeah vice chair if i may yeah
[00:17:31] chair carrie yeah i i would speak in opposition to member lear's amendment um in that uh if it's
[00:17:41] an authorized activity by the school. The teacher is free to participate in that activity. This
[00:17:49] language is limited to unauthorized events or activities that happen during the school day,
[00:17:57] and it's limited to the individual staff members' participation in those events.
[00:18:07] In terms of the results in, again, that's an allegation just like all other allegations.
[00:18:15] It would need to be proven or established generally by a preponderance of the evidence.
[00:18:22] But it is an either or.
[00:18:25] You don't need to prove the results in in order to find a violation of the participation.
[00:18:32] So I think there are enough safeguards in the makeup of the language.
[00:18:39] And again, this isn't new territory for LEAs.
[00:18:43] This is something where no one is suggesting that the mere allegation would result in a violation.
[00:18:49] But again, that would have to be established, again, generally by a preponderance of the evidence.
[00:18:55] Thank you.
[00:18:57] Thank you, Chair.
[00:18:58] And I also have another follow-up question on this piece.
[00:19:02] this would probably go to AAG Cooper as well. So the part of this that says a staff member
[00:19:08] may not plan, organize, promote, encourage, or participate in an unauthorized activity during
[00:19:14] the school day that disrupts instructional time. So if an employee goes and participates in an
[00:19:19] unauthorized activity that disrupts instructional time, let's say, I mean, if they leave the
[00:19:24] classroom and get a substitute, is that a disruption of instructional time?
[00:19:32] If an employee decides to, let's say, go to a concert during that day or something where they're not in the classroom, would that be considered a disruption of instructional time?
[00:19:43] That's not how I read it.
[00:19:45] What I read it is if there is something going on that is not part and parcel and they're in.
[00:19:52] I mean, I'm almost reading it like you guys have drafted it toward protests and things of that nature that would be disruptive of school and.
[00:20:00] and those are the things that are problems, but getting a substitute and then going and doing
[00:20:06] whatever I don't think is problematic. Am I understanding the question correctly? Because
[00:20:10] I don't feel like I am. I was just wondering if this would hold a teacher accountable for not
[00:20:16] being in the classroom, because that is disruptive, in my opinion, to an instructional time.
[00:20:21] It can be disruptive, but that would be different because that's something that would be
[00:20:25] authorized, because they would have to get a substitute in. They would have had to have gone
[00:20:29] through the process and the procedures this seems to be geared much more toward something that is
[00:20:35] not authorized and something that the school would not be okay with okay thank you so unauthorized
[00:20:42] puts that in that delineation i appreciate that thank you ag cooper a member there no i don't i
[00:20:48] i don't have any sorry i just forgot to take my getting back into this uh i'm getting into the
[00:20:54] thing about um using my little icon sorry um no i don't have anything else to say i'm i'm
[00:21:01] wrestling with i think aeg cooper's um uh explanations and and sort of uh lack of concern
[00:21:10] helps me so thank you for that okay so if we can go back to the motion so the motion currently is
[00:21:20] an amendment or to amend the amendment that the committee strike or participate in and or results
[00:21:26] in we will do a roll call vote um just because we are virtually so uh member lear uh yes
[00:21:35] and uh member hall no uh chair carrie no
[00:21:44] okay and um i'm a no as well so that motion does fail uh three to one with member lear being the
[00:21:51] yes vote so we will go back to the underlying motion that the committee reinstate lines 114
[00:21:56] through 117 on draft 4a is there any further discussion to this motion
[00:22:04] so we will go ahead and take a roll call vote for that um member lear yes
[00:22:11] member hall yes chair carey yes and i'm also a yes so that uh passes forward to zero with
[00:22:21] a member longacre absent um so we are back um talking about draft 4a any other discussion
[00:22:29] concerns comments um member lear yeah i wanted to call attention to a few things
[00:22:38] that i worked on last week with uh staff member canal um specialist canal and just just so that
[00:22:48] we're i don't want to have anybody and maybe everybody read it really carefully and doesn't
[00:22:54] need to be um kind of reiterated but i think a couple of things are worth uh noting and that is
[00:23:02] And at the end of the rule, toward the end of the rule, there was a mixture of things that a staff member could not really attest to, but that were the duties of the LEA.
[00:23:20] And we had mentioned this to Greg Canal, but he and we just hadn't maybe hadn't been clear enough.
[00:23:27] And so in the initial draft that we got still had some of those LEA responsibilities mixed in with what the Code of Conduct said.
[00:23:36] So I think we now have those appropriately under the LEA responsibilities.
[00:23:42] And then, as I read it one last time, Monday, there were some responsibilities that were really not LEA responsibilities that were superintendent responsibilities, the state superintendent responsibilities, the very end of the very end of the rule.
[00:23:58] So that we move those underneath the superintendent herself, himself.
[00:24:08] And those are now underneath in a separate section.
[00:24:12] I feel better about that. I'm still, I didn't support this rule to begin with. I think it is
[00:24:19] now better than it was, but I think it is still somewhat difficult because it requires an LEA to
[00:24:31] take the piece out of the middle of the rule that's supposed to be the
[00:24:34] model policy and then make it a model policy. I thought the previous rule that had a separate
[00:24:40] model policy was easier for LEAs to use. I still don't think that this was necessary. I think we
[00:24:48] had an adequate rule in place with a good model policy. And I'm not sure whether I'll
[00:24:57] support it in the committee today, despite all the work that's
[00:25:00] gone into it since last October, because I still don't think it was necessary, but I
[00:25:04] think it's also better than it was, and I didn't want it to pass in the forms that it
[00:25:10] was previously in.
[00:25:13] So I just kind of still have reservations about the need for this, and some of the language
[00:25:20] in here feels unnecessarily threatening to me, too, that it wasn't in the initial draft.
[00:25:30] Thank you. I actually want to say I really appreciate the group's willingness to, you know, come together and try to work on the language. I think we've gotten to a decent place. I agree that I don't know that we needed to change the rule specifically, but I also understand that there's been some recent things that would make board members feel better if we were a little bit more explicit in some of them. So I totally understand that piece.
[00:25:52] There are just a couple of little pieces that I think we may want to address.
[00:25:57] One is on line 214 and 215.
[00:26:01] This was added in our last committee meeting because we were having that discussion on making sure contractors and volunteers were held accountable to a code of conduct policy.
[00:26:13] Now that we've addressed that in the definition of a staff member that already includes contractors and volunteers, I feel like this language is redundant.
[00:26:22] We've already said you have to have a policy for a staff member which includes this group.
[00:26:26] So I would like to make a motion to strike lines 214 through 215.
[00:26:33] Is there any discussion to that motion, the committee strike line 214 through 215?
[00:26:47] Okay. Then we will go ahead and take a roll call vote. So the motion is that the committee
[00:26:53] strike 214 or lines 214 through 215. Member Lear?
[00:26:59] Yes.
[00:27:01] Member Hall?
[00:27:02] Yes.
[00:27:03] Chair Kerry?
[00:27:05] Yes.
[00:27:06] And I'm also a yes. So that passes unanimously 4 to 0 with member Longacre absent. There's
[00:27:12] one other thing I would like to ask a question about. I'm not sure if I have a motion or
[00:27:17] not yet but on line 32 i know we have our time certain here so i'll be real quick line 32 um
[00:27:25] i've had a few people reaching out to me um wondering on this substantiated means that an
[00:27:32] allegation has been proven through an investigation or hearing by a preponderance of competent
[00:27:38] evidence and i'd like to a ag cooper if you can help us understand i preponderance of evidence
[00:27:44] is typically a term that we've used, preponderance of competent evidence. Can you help me understand
[00:27:51] how that legally impacts this rule? Preponderance of the evidence basically is just more likely than
[00:27:59] not. Think about it in terms of 51% versus 49%. Competent evidence, I'm not real wild about the
[00:28:10] phrasing of it, but it means that there is evidence that is believable, credible, admissible.
[00:28:25] It's kind of a catchphrase for that. So it's evidence that you could actually consider as
[00:28:33] opposed to things, evidence that is not very credible, that is not worth, that you would not
[00:28:42] weigh in such a way to consider it, making your decision based on that. Okay, thank you. Member
[00:28:52] Lerner. And this is to follow up to AG Cooper, if that's okay. Actually, I meant to bring this
[00:28:58] concern forward to. So thanks, Amanda. I kept getting confused with a couple of the rules that
[00:29:04] we now have before us. So I was going to ask, Laura, do you think this raises the bar on
[00:29:13] evidence? That's what I was wrestling with. It seems to me it does. And I read, you know,
[00:29:20] I did just a Google search on the difference, because it's not something I really was familiar
[00:29:27] with. And it seems to say that it raises the bar. You can't, it can't be a preponderance of all
[00:29:33] evidence. You can only make it a, it's only a preponderance of competent evidence. So it seems
[00:29:40] to raise the bar. Is that how you would characterize it too? To some extent, yes. I think it tries to
[00:29:48] make sure that you're making decisions based, you're still using the same evidentiary standard,
[00:29:54] which is preponderance but you're trying to be more selective
[00:30:00] on the evidence that you use i mean admin hearings are less formal than say a criminal court and a
[00:30:08] criminal court there is admissible evidence and there is inadmissible evidence and admissible
[00:30:12] evidence you can't use at all here you can pretty much look at everything but some of that evidence
[00:30:18] is really not very credible so it would not be considered competent you know it's the somebody
[00:30:26] heard something that somebody else said type of thing and unless yeah like three times removed
[00:30:33] or something along those right and that would not be competent evidence but it's really hard to
[00:30:38] unring that bell so by specifically saying that you've got to rely on competent evidence you have
[00:30:47] to be more careful about what you're relying on and making your decisions okay and i it's okay if
[00:30:54] i follow up amanda yeah sorry that was your that was your amendment but now i'm following up um i
[00:31:01] i think i think it's helpful to kind of remember too that in the preponderance in in a civil
[00:31:10] setting like to send a preponderance of the evidence whether it's competent evidence or not
[00:31:15] it's the the what i was researching a little bit was it's you still can't make the decision but
[00:31:22] based solely on for instance hearsay um but you can uh and that as as i understand it that's true
[00:31:31] whether it's a preponderance of the evidence or preponderance of competent evidence but but
[00:31:36] hearsay is can be part of that evidence is that is that how you understand that laura or well yes
[00:31:42] no hearsay if it's admissible hearsay for whatever reason whether it be one of the exceptions to the
[00:31:50] hearsay rules or if it is something that is coming in that has something independent yes it's just
[00:31:57] like testimony people think that you can't convict someone just on testimony but you can because that
[00:32:03] is considered competent evidence so if it fits to where it would be considered competent evidence
[00:32:09] even though it's hearsay you could use that alone but usually you need more okay and i yeah okay
[00:32:16] That's that corroboration. And you don't think the competent adds or subtracts from that standard, right? That hearsay, that hearsay exception kind of for administrative procedures?
[00:32:28] No, I don't think that's directly related to whether or not, because there are rules that
[00:32:33] govern whether or not hearsay is admissible. And that's what's going to govern on that. But what
[00:32:39] it's going to do is it's going to come in, and as you're looking at it, you might not think,
[00:32:44] even though that hearsay came in under a valid exception, you might not think it's credible
[00:32:49] and competent. So that's kind of where you're going to say, I don't consider that piece of
[00:32:54] evidence to be competent, even though it came in under this exception. Even though it's acceptable
[00:33:02] hearsay. I'm sorry, you're breaking up on me. Oh, even though it's acceptable hearsay, I'm just
[00:33:06] thinking out loud. Thanks. Right. Acceptable doesn't mean that it's necessarily competent
[00:33:10] and that you have to accept it. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that discussion.
[00:33:17] Okay. Thank you. We actually are past our time for our time, certain at 1:30, but if I, here's what I want to ask is, does the committee have further discussion on this that we want to put on hold, or are we ready to make an underlying motion for this draft?
[00:33:34] I'm ready to make a motion, Vice Chair.
[00:33:37] Okay, Chair Kerry, go ahead.
[00:33:40] AND THAT MOTION IS THAT THE COMMITTEE APPROVE R277-322 LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY CODES OF CONDUCT
[00:33:53] DRAFT 4A AS AMENDED ON FIRST READING AND FORWARD TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL ON SECOND
[00:34:03] AND FINAL READING.
[00:34:05] Okay, so the motion is that the committee approve R-277-322, Local Education Agency,
[00:34:12] Codes of Conduct, Draft 4 as amended on first reading and forward to the board for approval
[00:34:17] on second and final reading.
[00:34:19] Any other discussion before we take a vote?
[00:34:22] That was 4A, Amanda, and I did you see?
[00:34:24] Oh, yeah, sorry, Draft 4A as amended.
[00:34:26] Yes, that's correct.
[00:34:28] Okay, then we will go ahead and take a voice vote.
[00:34:33] Member Lear.
[00:34:34] reluctantly. Yes. Yes. Oh, it's like, did you not hear me? Oh, sorry. Member Hall. Yes.
[00:34:53] Chair Carey. Yes. And I'm also a yes. So that does pass. You know, it's like four
[00:35:00] zero with member Longacre absent with that. Chair Carey, I'm going to turn that back to you for our
[00:35:04] time certain. Thank you, Vice Chair. And I want to thank the committee for accommodating board
[00:35:11] member Green's schedule. She is traveling, but I know that she's put a lot of time and effort into
[00:35:16] item 1.12, sensitive materials timeline update. This window was the only time that board member
[00:35:25] Green was available, and so we agreed to set this for a time certain. Is Member
[00:35:31] Green with us online? Yes, I'm here. Okay, thank you. Member Green, before you
[00:35:42] cue this up, let me just ask the committee. This has been in our backup. Are
[00:35:48] there any specific questions for Member Green? And if not at this time, I would
[00:35:55] just ask member Green maybe to cue this up with some background and then we'll turn it over for
[00:36:00] questions. Member Green. Okay, can you hear me okay? Okay, great. Thank you. And thanks so much for
[00:36:14] letting me join your committee. You guys are awesome. You're sounding great, getting work done.
[00:36:21] But yeah, just a little bit about this. This is something that we have really worked together
[00:36:27] as a board on for quite a few years now. Something that I keep asking about is to understand kind of
[00:36:36] the business relationship side of how libraries are created and the procurement of the library
[00:36:48] materials, books, and resources that end up there. And so I made the motion in May to have a review
[00:36:57] of that. We amended it to have staff kind of look into what would be required in order to do that
[00:37:04] in a thorough fashion, what kind of resources they might need, and to make sure that we had a pretty
[00:37:10] solid direction on what it is that we were looking for. So they were able to bring that back to us
[00:37:16] in June and presented us with a very thorough kind of strategy and plan on how we could kind of,
[00:37:27] how do you eat an elephant, you know, strategy. So with that, it did require some funding
[00:37:32] and we were able to confirm that that funding is available. And we are looking, the goal of this
[00:37:40] is to really understand that kind of the industry relationship that we have through the public
[00:37:49] education lane. So my contention is that we have our librarians that are really, they've been
[00:37:57] placed in the hot seat. We also have a lot of parents that are being required to do a lot of
[00:38:03] work in filtering through, you know, literature that has, you know, that we need to address as
[00:38:11] far as it falls under our sensitive materials review. I don't want to see our sensitive materials
[00:38:19] continue to be more of a reactive measure. I would rather be one step ahead and get kind of
[00:38:25] at the root of why this issue may or may not keep arising. The other thing that I foresee happening
[00:38:32] is continual legislation that gets formed around something that we might not fully understand
[00:38:40] and so I feel like we are getting in a good place where things are settling which is a good thing
[00:38:48] and that gives us space to iron out kind of the rest of the issues that still fall around
[00:38:56] this area so and it is with you today um i think it was just a technical uh error or not error but
[00:39:06] just a technical uh item that needed to happen where it was on the agenda item underneath another
[00:39:13] action item so we separated that out and thank you so much for hearing this i do appreciate it
[00:39:19] i've tried to reach out and have some other conversations um and we just wanted to keep
[00:39:24] that moving forward. Again, because we're trying to get this done and accomplished before
[00:39:29] the beginning of the new year. Thank you.
[00:39:34] Thank you. Thank you, Member Green. Any questions from members of the committee?
[00:39:47] Let me just say that I want to thank Member Green for taking the time and the hard work
[00:39:52] to put this application together
[00:39:54] I like the emphasis on
[00:39:56] I wrote these words down actually
[00:39:58] last night
[00:40:00] the procurement selection and acquisition of books and our public school libraries,
[00:40:06] I think that is a process that needs to be better understood by members of the board,
[00:40:16] as well as members of the public. This research would allow us to get at the core of that particular
[00:40:25] system, and all the parties and vendors surrounding what certainly is across the country a multi-billion
[00:40:37] dollar industry.
[00:40:39] I know this will focus on Utah, and it is a multi-million dollar, presumably, industry.
[00:40:47] So I just want to thank you for taking the time to do that.
[00:40:51] And I do support the project, but let me ask members of the committee again, are there any questions?
[00:40:59] Here, we do have a few hands up, just so you know. I'm a member of Larry and myself.
[00:41:06] Thank you, Dr. Bollinger. Go ahead.
[00:41:10] Yeah, thank you. Thank you. So I do have two questions.
[00:41:16] one. And I do appreciate, I agree with everything that's said by Member Green and by Chair Kerry. I
[00:41:22] do support this idea, and I think it's a great use of our time and funds. But just a couple
[00:41:27] questions, just for my own understanding and understanding of the public is, there was a
[00:41:31] fiscal note of we're looking at using $60,000 of our discretionary funds. What, I would like to
[00:41:36] just know, what does that money go towards? What are we paying for? Are we paying for transportation?
[00:41:42] Are we paying for travel, for staff to get around to school districts?
[00:41:49] I don't know who the best person to answer that question is, but do we have an answer to that?
[00:41:56] Through you, Chair.
[00:41:58] Oh, thank you.
[00:42:00] Is Scott Jones on the...
[00:42:03] He is not.
[00:42:10] Oh, is it?
[00:42:12] Does Davina have an answer to that, maybe?
[00:42:15] Thank you.
[00:42:17] Davina Salsoff, Library Media Specialist Teaching and Learning.
[00:42:19] I was trying to find my little hand raised, and I couldn't get it fast enough.
[00:42:23] So, appreciate your patience.
[00:42:26] So, I think the intent of the request for funding was to fund the work of the LEAs.
[00:42:36] It would not be staff or within the agency.
[00:42:38] It would be, if you notice on the monitoring timeline, there were about 789 LEA hours that were going to be needed to collect the data that we would be requesting.
[00:42:49] And so we would do some contracts with LEAs to pay them for that time that it would take to curate the information we were requesting.
[00:43:02] Does that answer your question, Vice Chair Bollinger?
[00:43:04] It does, thank you.
[00:43:05] I may have one other question, please, Chair.
[00:43:08] My next question is, so it looks like in phase one and phase two, the sample size is 12 districts and three charters.
[00:43:17] So 12 districts is about 25% of all district schools, but three charters is such a small percentage of our charters.
[00:43:25] How are those numbers determined?
[00:43:30] - I would defer to, thank you.
[00:43:36] I would defer to member Green or a member of staff
[00:43:41] who may wish to take that on.
[00:43:47] - You know, I don't know the answer to that.
[00:43:51] If I can defer to staff,
[00:43:53] it looks like maybe Devina has her hand up.
[00:43:57] - Happy to answer.
[00:43:59] So to date, we have not had any charter schools report sensitive materials challenges to the state board.
[00:44:08] They have 100% come from our LEAs, our districts, excuse me.
[00:44:14] And so those numbers were basically just an aggregation of like the likelihood.
[00:44:19] First of all, our charter schools, a lot of them don't have libraries.
[00:44:23] They're doing far less purchasing than the districts are.
[00:44:27] And so that number was determined based on that information, that data that we're not seeing a lot of charter or a lot of challenges in charter schools and be that many of our charter schools do not have libraries, official libraries.
[00:44:43] They might have a shelf of books that a parent might navigate, you know, things like that, but they don't have the same, you know, library systems, classroom libraries, school libraries, et cetera, that our districts have.
[00:44:58] Thank you.
[00:45:00] But I think I think. Okay, thank you. Member Lear. Thanks. I had some similar questions and Davina might be the best person or I'm also kind of looking for what Emily envisioned. And when I first read this, and I maybe didn't do my homework as thoroughly as I should have, but help me know. And again, between Emily and Davina, help me envision what does this look like?
[00:45:28] put it because you've said a review and an audit so i don't know if that means auditors i think you
[00:45:35] said that the information would be self-reported i'm also concerned that only because we haven't
[00:45:43] had any challenges come from charter schools doesn't necessarily mean that there are not
[00:45:50] collections there that we need to know about and so i'm i'm equally concerned that three out of
[00:45:57] 130 charter schools is not a very helpful picture. So I know I'm mixing issues in there,
[00:46:08] but help me look like what this review would look like and if we would also be using some
[00:46:15] of this money to pay for auditors. Savina, are you up for responding to that?
[00:46:23] Yes, happy to answer that. And I remember, Leah, you actually reminded me that one of the things we looked at with the charters was just the number of students. And so we had only a handful of charters that had, you know, more than a thousand students. So that was another contribution to the decision there.
[00:46:41] Not without saying that. I mean, it would be a simple thing to add more charters if the committee felt like that was an important thing to do. So we would be happy to do that. And then to.
[00:46:55] I'm sorry. The process. Yes, the process. The process. Yeah, the process. So, but your question about audit. So, because we have language and code that defines what an audit is, this would not be an audit. There would not be auditors participating in this process.
[00:47:15] it would be solely completed by staff and then the work of the LEAs and so we've shifted that
[00:47:23] language from audit to monitoring so we're basically looking at the school library programs
[00:47:28] across the state and then evaluating them based on the information that we're collecting in these
[00:47:33] different phases so it would not be an audit in official capacity in any way. So and if I can
[00:47:40] chair if i could just ask her some questions is that all right or do you want me to go through you
[00:47:45] no that's fine um that didn't sound like joe oh no that's that's fine my battery's down so i'm
[00:47:55] trying to conserve my phone battery oh sorry um uh so the when i said self-reported so are you
[00:48:05] going to ask, are you going to provide a series of, you know, 12 or 20 or whatever items that
[00:48:12] you want information, that you want information about from LEAs? Is that sort of what this would
[00:48:18] look like? Yes, correct. We have started a survey form that would collect, that would go out to
[00:48:27] LEAs asking them for specific information. And then they would, they would report that information
[00:48:33] on the form that we are in the process of creating.
[00:48:37] It's not completed yet, but it would be seeking information from the district level, not from
[00:48:42] the school library itself, although they may need to reach out to the librarian for information.
[00:48:49] However, most of our catalog systems have somebody at the district level that can access
[00:48:56] the data that we might need from there, but there's also the purchasing requirements that
[00:49:00] usually would come from the purchasing department, as you probably know.
[00:49:03] And then in order to get a reasonably representative picture, if districts choose just not to respond, what's your plan for how robust is this?
[00:49:23] Is this just a surface level sort of informational experience or is this, are you going to really dog the 12 that you've chosen?
[00:49:34] I'm just because we've had that problem with audits.
[00:49:37] And if I were an LEA that had a lot of things on my plate, which most of them do, I might say, this is more than I want to do and just not respond.
[00:49:48] And so how big of a deal is that?
[00:49:50] I'm just looking to see how in depth this is going to be.
[00:49:54] And, and that kind of says to me, how credible is the information?
[00:50:00] yet before i answer that i do see board member green has her hand up and i want to give her a
[00:50:05] chance to if she had something she wanted to say for this these questions board member green yeah
[00:50:12] absolutely and devina you know i would love to hear your feedback on um member lear's questions
[00:50:19] as well um i think the biggest concern i have is that we that we veer off of kind of the
[00:50:28] The process before the selection itself, I'm really most interested in the industry terms about procurement, professionals, publishers, and business analysis.
[00:50:44] So supply chain, procurement, market structure, collection development, and those business relationships.
[00:50:54] So what I'm personally looking for, I'll give you some examples.
[00:50:59] So there's a publishing ecosystem, there's a supply chain, there's a distribution network, you have your channel partners, your distribution channels, your upstream suppliers, which is the publishers.
[00:51:12] You've got your downstream customers, which is the schools.
[00:51:15] Then you have your market intermediaries.
[00:51:18] The procurement of this, these are the terms that the school business officials and purchasing
[00:51:23] departments use. So you've got, again, that word procurement, you have your acquisition processes,
[00:51:30] your procurement pipelines, the purchasing workflow, your vendor management, your strategic
[00:51:38] sourcing, your contracted purchasing, your cooperative purchasing, your purchasing consortiums,
[00:51:44] and your approved vendor lists and then you also have your sole source purchasing where applicable
[00:51:49] and then you have your competitive uh procurement processes so then I can go on to like market
[00:51:55] structure and collection development so it's actually this side of the business part of it
[00:52:01] that we really have to understand not just that I know schools have those processes in place
[00:52:08] um and it's that it's kind of like the business part of it and the marketplace that we are
[00:52:17] looking to have uh reviewed and maybe i remember leer i don't know if i confused you more but
[00:52:26] what i hope is that we we keep there is a very specific lane that that we want this uh review
[00:52:33] to be in and so i've i've i've named kind of the industry words and that's what we're looking for
[00:52:41] and um if i can respond i mean i i'm just a little i'm fine i i think it's worth looking
[00:52:53] if if it's as simple as how do schools get their materials and do they have um an a
[00:53:03] wide open lane to look for the best materials that's what i would be interested in i'm if if
[00:53:11] we're if we're thinking there's i don't know i'm i'm i'm are you thinking that there's collusion
[00:53:18] or intimidation or something in buying certain materials and that's what we're that's what
[00:53:24] you're concerned about is am i missing what your concern is emily it's it's a great it's a great
[00:53:31] concern it's a great question so really it comes from that some believe that the responsibility
[00:53:38] belongs to entirely to like say the local education agencies that many districts are doing a good job
[00:53:45] and i i do respect the work of local school boards administrators the librarians so the motions
[00:53:52] actually it's not intended to replace their authority or second guess their professionalism
[00:53:56] kind of like what you just said like i'm looking for something however the state board also has a
[00:54:02] responsibility when statewide policies and legislation continue to evolve in this area
[00:54:08] so we're being asked to implement and respond to laws governing sensitive materials yet we've never
[00:54:14] fully examined the system that brings those materials into our schools in the first place
[00:54:19] so right now my argument's kind of been that much of our process is it's reactive to a certain
[00:54:28] extent so books are are often identified only after a parent discovers them they have to read
[00:54:35] them files a challenge begins what can be a lengthy review process as we've seen and if
[00:54:41] librarians are expected to serve as the first filter for the materials that don't meet the
[00:54:47] Utah law, then we should understand the systems, the standards, the vendors, the training and
[00:54:52] collection development practices that support those decisions. So in answer, just to clarify,
[00:55:00] member lear the study is not about assigning blame in any way it is about understanding the
[00:55:06] upstream process instead of focusing only on the downstream complaints so if our current system
[00:55:14] is working well then we reinforce confidence in it and if there's gaps then we have the information
[00:55:20] necessary to make the thoughtful improvements and i get that your very last statement was the most
[00:55:26] helpful at all as of all um and so i get that and i'm not trying again i don't want to over
[00:55:33] complicate this but i kind of didn't get what you were looking at and i'm not wasn't worried about
[00:55:39] blame or anything like that i just um it just it kind of baffled me what you wanted to know
[00:55:48] so that helps thank you yeah well and can i respond through the chair uh yes let's if
[00:55:56] We could just keep it brief, board member Green.
[00:55:58] We'll have several items on these.
[00:56:00] Yeah, actually, I remember, Lear, what you said is exactly what we keep facing.
[00:56:08] It's the industry language that we want to look into.
[00:56:13] So education has its own language.
[00:56:15] The business that, you know, that exists here, the industry that exists here of procuring books has its own language.
[00:56:26] And the only way we'll figure out what that relationship is, is by using that language as we do the deep dives with the specific LEAs.
[00:56:39] Thank you, Board Member Green.
[00:56:43] I don't see any other hands related to this issue and not seeing any hands.
[00:56:51] We are ready for a motion.
[00:56:55] Board member Hall, do you want to continue your run in terms of making the motions?
[00:57:01] I can't hear you, but.
[00:57:05] I'm trying to get it back up on my screen here, Joe.
[00:57:09] Give me one second.
[00:57:13] Let me pull up Ben's screen.
[00:57:20] Okay.
[00:57:25] okay all right I got it back are we ready yes sir all right I'm going to make the motion that
[00:57:38] the committee adopt a 2026 timeline policy draft one is this the motion that we're making
[00:57:43] yes okay that the committee adopt a 2026 timeline policy draft one on first reading
[00:57:50] and appropriate $60,000 from board discretionary funds
[00:57:53] for implementation and forward to the board
[00:57:55] for approval on second and final reading.
[00:57:59] So the motion before the committee
[00:58:01] is that the committee adopt the 2026 timeline policy draft one
[00:58:07] on first reading and appropriate $60,000
[00:58:10] from board discretionary funds for implementation
[00:58:14] and forward to the board for approval
[00:58:17] on second and final reading.
[00:58:20] And let's just take a roll call vote.
[00:58:22] Board Member Lear?
[00:58:24] Yes.
[00:58:25] Board Member Hall?
[00:58:27] Yes.
[00:58:29] Vice Chair Bollinger?
[00:58:31] Yes.
[00:58:33] And I am also a yes.
[00:58:34] That passes unanimously with Board Member Longacre missing.
[00:58:38] Board Member Green, thank you for taking the time.
[00:58:41] Please, safe travels on your journey back home.
[00:58:44] Thank you.
[00:58:45] Appreciate it.
[00:58:46] Thank you.
[00:58:48] Okay.
[00:58:50] And then I think we can just resume our normal line of business and resume with item 1.5, R277-306.
[00:59:03] And Director Rasmussen, I think you're still on deck.
[00:59:06] Is that correct?
[00:59:07] Yeah, we need to do actually 1.4 first.
[00:59:10] We didn't get to that one.
[00:59:11] Oh.
[00:59:11] But that would be the next one, if that's all right.
[00:59:14] Yeah, please.
[00:59:15] Let's do 1.4 R277-304, Teacher Preparation Programs, and Director Rasmussen.
[00:59:23] Okay, so this is the Teacher Prep Programs rule, as you mentioned.
[00:59:28] Staff is proposing amendments to the requirements for a couple of the Teacher Prep Programs here.
[00:59:34] You can see the changes here, and then also there's some technical changes as far as language in the Special Needs Program.
[00:59:43] Also some changes proposed for the CTE programs as well.
[00:59:49] We have Lisa McLaughlin and Malou Haidt
[00:59:52] that can answer any questions you have on the rule,
[00:59:54] but other than that,
[00:59:56] this staff would recommend passing drafts
[01:00:00] Thank you. I don't see any hands, but I do have one question, and it doesn't relate to any of the amendments, but on line 28, you know, we're talking about, on line 27, clinical experience means a structured opportunity in which a program candidate is mentored by a licensed educator.
[01:00:22] And it just got me thinking, and I know this is the CTE, and is this the CTE? Yeah. And I thought, are we using mentored because this is CTE, and when it's not CTE, we use taught and teaching? Or is there a measurable difference? And if so, have we defined that anywhere when we use mentored versus teaching or taught?
[01:00:51] that would be my question. And Dr. Hyde, I see you nodding, so I'm going to direct the question
[01:00:55] to you if that's okay. Sure. Thank you, Chair Malia Hyde, Executive Coordinator of Educator
[01:01:01] Licensing. And Lisa is certainly able to answer this question and perhaps give some more detail
[01:01:09] if required. When we're talking about mentoring within the aspect of teacher preparation,
[01:01:16] we're talking about the an expert teacher who is mentoring a student teacher and so their job isn't
[01:01:24] to teach that person how to become a teacher that the student teachers already completed all of their
[01:01:29] coursework at a university for example but within a clinical experience that's when they're doing
[01:01:35] their student teaching and they have a master teacher that they can bounce ideas off of get
[01:01:40] feedback on how they're doing in the classroom. And so we're talking about a mentoring relationship.
[01:01:49] And that mentoring relationship is actually well-defined in board rule. And it is in R277308.
[01:02:03] is we have an entire board rule on mentoring and that talks about the
[01:02:10] relationship between a master teacher and either a new teacher specifically
[01:02:15] this is a new teacher but within the context of the rule we're discussing
[01:02:19] today it's with a student teacher the mentoring okay I want to thank you for
[01:02:24] that thank you dr. height I don't see any hands from the board if there are no
[01:02:29] questions we are ready for a motion I'm happy to make a motionless Rod's gonna
[01:02:38] keep going with it I'm passing the baton yeah I'll pick up the next one yep okay
[01:02:45] thank you so I would like to yeah thank you chair I would make a motion that the
[01:02:49] committee approve R277-304 teacher preparation programs draft one on first
[01:02:55] First reading and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading.
[01:02:59] Okay. The motion before the committee is that the committee approve R277-304 teacher preparation programs draft one on first reading and forward to the board for approval on second and final reading.
[01:03:16] Well, let's do a roll call vote. Board member Lear?
[01:03:20] Yes.
[01:03:21] Board member Hall?
[01:03:23] Yes.
[01:03:24] Vice Chair Bollinger. Yes.
[01:03:29] I am a yes. That passes unanimously with board member Longacre absent.
[01:03:37] Okay. Director Rasmussen, I think we're now ready for item 1.5, R277-306, educator preparation programs for school psychologists, audiologists, speech language pathologists, speech language technicians,
[01:03:54] counselors and so and school social worker director rasmussen yeah so this uh chair is
[01:04:02] another rule that comes from hb 374 where the board no longer has licensing authority over
[01:04:08] audiologists and speech language pathologists essentially we need to amend this rule to take
[01:04:13] out the prep programs for those two uh former license areas and then we're also make recommending
[01:04:20] a small amendment in the prep program rule for speech language technicians because they
[01:04:28] are part of their training involves a licensed speech language pathologist.
[01:04:32] We actually are going to request someone from the committee make a motion to amend on that
[01:04:39] to clarify the language for that specific section.
[01:04:42] We had asked Member Longacre to make that in June, but if one of you could make that
[01:04:46] motion. It's just we can put
[01:04:48] it on the screen for you just to
[01:04:50] clarify that the
[01:04:51] person providing training for a speech language
[01:04:54] technician can be either someone with
[01:04:56] a USB license that's
[01:04:58] previously issued or now
[01:05:00] One issued by Doppel.
[01:05:03] If there's any questions, we are happy to answer those.
[01:05:10] I'm not seeing any questions, so we need the first motion made first.
[01:05:16] I was slow on the uptake.
[01:05:21] I'll skip the icon.
[01:05:26] So I've wondered this, and this just happens to be the first occasion to talk about it, Ben.
[01:05:33] So if a speech language, and I recall having some of these individuals who we've had investigations,
[01:05:42] professional practices investigations over the years.
[01:05:45] If they're licensed by DOPPL and don't have an educator license, then does the board,
[01:05:53] What authority does the board have over these individuals and their licenses?
[01:05:59] I think our authority would be to refer them to Doppel if we think they've committed misconduct.
[01:06:04] Okay.
[01:06:05] And then whatever Doppel decides is what goes.
[01:06:10] Yeah.
[01:06:11] And I think we've had a few of these over the years, a handful maybe.
[01:06:15] We have.
[01:06:17] Yeah.
[01:06:18] So that's interesting.
[01:06:19] Okay.
[01:06:19] That's helpful.
[01:06:20] That was one of the thoughts I had.
[01:06:22] Thanks.
[01:06:23] You know, building off board member Lear's question, the technicians and DAPL, how many
[01:06:33] speech language technicians do we currently have in the state, approximately?
[01:06:40] Dr. Height probably could answer that.
[01:06:43] Yes, Chair, if I may.
[01:06:45] We do not have a lot.
[01:06:46] I know it's several hundred, but I would have to look and see exactly the number.
[01:06:52] I'm happy to provide that to you if you'd like.
[01:06:55] - Maybe if we're just prepared to answer that
[01:06:57] at the full board.
[01:06:58] I was just curious based on the answer that was given.
[01:07:03] Any other questions?
[01:07:05] I'm not seeing any hands.
[01:07:07] We need two motions, one on the amendment
[01:07:10] and then one on the item itself.
[01:07:17] - Make the motion on the amendment.
[01:07:20] - Okay.
[01:07:21] Let the committee strike lines 98 through 100 and replace with the following.
[01:07:30] B, require significant experiences under the supervision of an individual holding.
[01:07:36] I, a professional speech-language pathologist license area of concentration, or double I, a speech-language pathologist license issued by Doppel.
[01:07:46] Oh, I'm so sorry.
[01:07:51] Yes, member of all the air.
[01:07:53] I do recall.
[01:07:55] I do recall I did have, this is the only place in the rule, I think, where Doppel is mentioned.
[01:08:01] I think that being the case, we should spell out the Division of Occupational Licensing there,
[01:08:08] which is sort of a non-substantive change, but I think it would be important
[01:08:14] for anyone reading the rule.
[01:08:19] A minor.
[01:08:20] Sorry about that.
[01:08:21] The motion does belong to the body.
[01:08:22] I don't see any objection.
[01:08:25] So we will consider this a technical change.
[01:08:30] And the motion before the committee
[01:08:32] is that the committee strike lines 98 through 100
[01:08:37] and replace with the following.
[01:08:39] B, requires significant experiences
[01:08:42] under the supervision of an individual holding I, a professional speech-language pathologist
[01:08:48] license, area of concentration, or II, a speech-language pathologist license issued by
[01:08:56] the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing.
[01:09:03] Let's take a roll call vote with that.
[01:09:06] Board Member Lear?
[01:09:07] Yes.
[01:09:09] Board Member Hall?
[01:09:12] Yes.
[01:09:12] vice chair bollinger yes and i am a yes that passes uh unanimously four to zero with board
[01:09:23] member longacre absent let's go to item 1.6 r277-101
[01:09:30] i think we need to do the underlying motion still i apologize thank you vice chair no no don't
[01:09:41] thank you for uh for bringing that to my attention we're ready for a motion on the underlying matter
[01:09:48] all right all right i make the motion that the committee approve r277 dash 306 educator preparation
[01:09:54] programs for school psychologists audiologists speech language pathologists speech language
[01:10:00] technicians counselors and school school social workers draft one is amended on first reading and
[01:10:05] forward to the board for approval on second and final reading thank you member hall the motion
[01:10:11] before the committee is that the committee approve r277-306 educator preparation programs for school
[01:10:18] psychologists audiologists speech language pathologists speech language technicians
[01:10:24] councilors and school social worker draft one as amended on first reading and forward to the
[01:10:32] board for approval on second and final reading. Let's do a roll call vote. Board member Lear.
[01:10:38] Yes. Board member Hall. Yes. Vice chair Bollinger. Yes. And I am a yes that passes
[01:10:46] unanimously with board member Longacre absent. Now let's proceed to item 1.6 R277
[01:10:54] 10-101, Public Participation in Utah State Board of Education Meetings. This is brought
[01:11:02] to us by Continuation and Board, excuse me, Director Rasmussen.
[01:11:08] Okay, so this is up for its five-year review. We need to take action on this by the August
[01:11:14] Board Meeting. This simply sets forth rules for public participation in your meetings.
[01:11:20] Staff recommends no changes at this time, but just simply recommends that the board continue it.
[01:11:28] Any discussion to this rule?
[01:11:31] I don't see any hands, but I do have one question, perhaps two, but I understand the time and I want to keep this.
[01:11:43] If it requires more time, we can do it at the board meeting.
[01:11:46] But our two minute time limit that we currently use at board meeting, is that set forth, I didn't see it in the rule, is that set forth in a policy or is that just historical and by practice that we do the two minute time limit on public comment?
[01:12:06] My understanding is they set that based on how many people are asking to speak and how much time they have. I don't think it's set in stone anywhere.
[01:12:16] Okay. So would that be at the chair's discretion?
[01:12:20] Yes.
[01:12:20] Okay. And then, this is for the AAG, this particular question. When someone wants to read from
[01:12:34] materials that they allege are found in our public schools. Historically, they begin to
[01:12:46] share what's in the material. The chair generally politely stops them and talks about our rules
[01:12:56] of decorum at USBE, and they are invited to submit their remarks in writing to the board.
[01:13:09] My question is, by limiting their submission to only members of the board, are we treating
[01:13:20] their speech differently from anyone else, from everyone else who wants to provide public
[01:13:28] comment where their public comment is recorded on video, people can go back and watch that
[01:13:34] public comment, where when they're only responding to the board, the only individuals aware of
[01:13:42] their comment are members of the board, are we permitted to treat that content differently?
[01:13:52] And if the answer is yes, are we treating it in the least restrictive means possible
[01:14:00] or should we be directing individuals to put their, I'll call it the sensitive comments
[01:14:07] that violate our rules of decorum in writing
[01:14:11] and then post it in backup?
[01:14:15] I think that the comments that they're making
[01:14:18] are considered what they're actually saying
[01:14:23] as opposed to what they're reading.
[01:14:26] And so they're not being treated any differently
[01:14:30] just by not being allowed to read whatever,
[01:14:33] if I'm understanding your question correctly.
[01:14:35] Say if somebody wanted to read something
[01:14:37] out of one of the sensitive materials uh that somebody's asking uh to be pulled from the
[01:14:43] the schools i think that not allowing them to read that is not the same as keeping them from
[01:14:51] commenting about that i don't see any reason that you could not supplement the um
[01:15:00] the record with that printout if it was provided to you.
[01:15:06] But I don't think that you're required and probably should not allow them to just read
[01:15:12] because that's going to take them outside of the time frame that you've got for everyone anyway.
[01:15:19] No, I see that argument.
[01:15:22] I guess I was just asking, you know, if they say this is offensive, this is pornographic,
[01:15:27] doesn't belong in the third grade and they want to submit their their comment as evidence
[01:15:35] as such by sharing that material and i agree with you it shouldn't it shouldn't be shared
[01:15:43] during the board meeting but i'm thinking that do we include it in backup otherwise the only people
[01:15:51] that are aware of it are members of the board versus the public no i i think if what they're
[01:15:57] trying to say is that this is material that shouldn't be included in a third grade book
[01:16:01] then they need to follow the process and making a public comment which is not evidence in
[01:16:10] that process is not particularly helpful so if that's what they're trying to do they need to
[01:16:15] follow the appropriate process they do have the right to come in and tell you they've got concerns
[01:16:20] but that's not going to be considered evidentiary in the same way so they need to follow the process
[01:16:25] on something like that well maybe they're not interested maybe they're not interested in removing
[01:16:32] the book but they just want to bring awareness i understand what you're saying like i don't think
[01:16:36] it's part of the the sensitive materials process but certainly they have a right in public comment
[01:16:42] to to bring it to the floor and share it um yeah so i'm not ready to make a motion on this yet but
[01:16:52] But I do have concerns that we are treating speech differently, politically protected speech.
[01:17:03] And I'll have to consider this a little bit more.
[01:17:07] But I do appreciate the feedback, A.G. Cooper.
[01:17:10] Thank you for that.
[01:17:11] You're very welcome.
[01:17:13] And if you've got something that you want me to take a look at more specific, certainly have the board ask us.
[01:17:21] and we can try to get you a more defined answer.
[01:17:26] - Okay, thank you.
[01:17:28] Are there any other questions on this topic?
[01:17:33] If not, we are ready for a motion.
[01:17:39] - Chair, I'm happy to make a motion.
[01:17:41] - Thank you, Vice Chair.
[01:17:43] - I would make a motion that the committee continue
[01:17:45] R277-101 public participation
[01:17:48] in Utah State Board of Education meetings
[01:17:50] and forward to the board for approval.
[01:17:53] - Okay, the motion before the committee is that,
[01:18:02] the committee continue R277-101 public participation
[01:18:06] in Utah State Board of Education meetings
[01:18:08] and forward to the board for approval.
[01:18:10] Let's take a roll call vote, Member Lear?
[01:18:13] - Yes.
[01:18:14] - Member Hall?
[01:18:15] - Yes.
[01:18:16] - Vice Chair Bollinger?
[01:18:18] - Yes.
[01:18:19] And I'm a yes, that passes unanimously with board member Longacre absent.
[01:18:25] Let's go to item 1.7, R277-409, public school membership in associations.
[01:18:35] And Director Rasmussen.
[01:18:43] Yeah, so this is another rule that's up for its five-year review.
[01:18:46] This basically governs the High School Activities Association or other associations that public
[01:18:54] schools may be members of.
[01:18:56] No amendments recommended at this time, just recommending consideration of continuing it
[01:19:02] for five more years.
[01:19:04] Okay.
[01:19:08] Any questions?
[01:19:09] No, go ahead.
[01:19:10] Sorry, I'll just make the motion when you're ready.
[01:19:13] I don't see any hands, so I think we're ready for a motion.
[01:19:18] Let me find that motion.
[01:19:23] I move that the committee continue R-277-409,
[01:19:27] public school membership and associations,
[01:19:30] and forward to the board for approval.
[01:19:34] Okay, the motion before the committee is that
[01:19:38] the committee continue R277-409 public school membership and associations and forward to the
[01:19:46] board for approval. We'll do a roll call vote. Member Lear? Yes. Member Hall? Yes. Vice Chair
[01:19:54] Bollinger? Yes. And I am a yes that passes four to zero. Yes.
[01:20:00] with board member Longacre missing.
[01:20:02] You know, we are at item 1.8,
[01:20:04] and unfortunately, I have a conflict
[01:20:07] that requires me to attend that.
[01:20:12] So I did speak with Vice Chair Bollinger in advance
[01:20:16] and said maybe something I couldn't get out of.
[01:20:20] So with that, I would like to turn the chair over
[01:20:24] to Vice Chair Bollinger to continue
[01:20:27] through the end of the meeting.
[01:20:29] thank you so much for that yep thank you okay so we will go to item action item r277-121 board
[01:20:42] waiver of administrative rules amendment and it looks like uh deputy superintendent of policy
[01:20:48] elise newey you're going to queue us up on this yeah sure can um so just to remind the committee
[01:20:56] So back in May, I believe, your committee saw some charters come to the committee to ask for a waiver from board rule.
[01:21:06] And during one of those discussions, I believe it was board member Longacre made the motion that we bring one to one.
[01:21:14] So this is the rule that governs those waivers to the committee to include a line that would require that if a charter comes before the committee to ask for a waiver,
[01:21:23] that they also bring a member of the school state or of their authorizer um the process requires
[01:21:31] that a charter school go to their authorizer to get that permission first before coming to you all
[01:21:37] to ask for that waiver and so i if i can um make an assumption i think it's to inform that
[01:21:44] conversation about what the authorizer um had asked and what they know about the conversation
[01:21:50] prior to um coming before your committee so you'll see those changes on line 75 through 77
[01:21:56] um that if a charter school requests a waiver under this rule a member of the board of the
[01:22:01] school's authorizer shall attend the standing committee meeting and the full board meeting to
[01:22:05] present the authorizer's recommendation and support the waiver request so that's just being
[01:22:11] brought to you um by a request from one of your members thank you appreciate that um
[01:22:18] I do want to make a comment on this, but I'll open it up to the committee members first.
[01:22:24] Member Hall.
[01:22:25] I just wanted to ask real quick, Chair, didn't we kind of come to an agreement on this that
[01:22:31] we were going to maybe, you know, not move forward with this?
[01:22:39] Yes.
[01:22:39] Yes, you're correct.
[01:22:40] We did have a chance.
[01:22:41] I know there were several of us back in June when we met.
[01:22:44] we had a chance to meet or chat with the new executive director of the state charter board,
[01:22:49] Stacey Hutchings, and with new leadership and they have several new board members, we had the
[01:22:55] discussion of, you know, giving them a chance to show that they want to be supportive. I know as a
[01:23:00] committee, we were kind of frustrated because we had questions to ask of our authorizers and didn't
[01:23:04] get our questions answered. And I think that's where this kind of came to or came from. So yes,
[01:23:09] i agree this this is a a rule that i think personally at this point i'm okay just taking
[01:23:17] no action on at this point um and if we don't take any action then it will it will just kind
[01:23:22] of fall off if we ever need to bring it back we could bring it back am i understanding that
[01:23:25] correctly elise okay i see her nodding okay so yes member hall does that answer your question yes
[01:23:34] yes it does thank you remember did you have any comments on this i don't thank you okay so with
[01:23:40] that um no did you have something to say no i just say i support that action that sounds great
[01:23:47] so inaction yes our support our inaction inaction yeah i'm all big on inaction yeah thank you okay
[01:23:54] so with that we are we'll take no action on um rt77121 and we'll go ahead and move on to
[01:24:02] the next agenda item this is action item r277-211 utah professional practices advisory commission
[01:24:10] rules of procedure notifications to educators complaints and final disciplinary actions so
[01:24:17] this is a a draft that's come forth it looks like chair carrie had an updated draft on draft three
[01:24:25] and that's what's bringing uh being brought before the board so i will open it up to the committee
[01:24:30] for discussion and or motions.
[01:24:33] Can I just clarify something real quick first?
[01:24:36] Sure, go ahead.
[01:24:38] Yes, please.
[01:24:39] There were three drafts submitted here.
[01:24:40] Draft one is actually the staff draft,
[01:24:43] which was meant to implement the Senate bill
[01:24:46] that requires the board to determine
[01:24:49] when educators that are suspended,
[01:24:51] when they can remain in the public schools
[01:24:52] or what work they can do in the public schools.
[01:24:55] So there's limited amendments in draft one
[01:24:57] that comes from staff.
[01:24:58] Draft two and draft three are...
[01:25:00] come or what uh what chair carry and who and a couple other board members wanted to bring forward
[01:25:07] thank you for that clarification uh director rasmussen so minor so for us to be compliant
[01:25:11] with the law draft one is what's coming from staff and then uh chair carry added additional
[01:25:17] amendments is that correct yes okay um member lear and so ben would you be willing somewhere
[01:25:27] between June and now
[01:25:29] I kind of just
[01:25:30] I think I heard that
[01:25:34] and then I forgot that
[01:25:35] so would you mind showing us those
[01:25:37] and then before you
[01:25:39] discuss those briefly
[01:25:41] just review those with us
[01:25:43] would it be
[01:25:46] your opinion this is
[01:25:47] minimally what's necessary in this rule
[01:25:49] to comply with
[01:25:51] I think it was
[01:25:53] 312, HB 312
[01:25:55] is that right?
[01:25:57] Yes. So there's just one change, if I may, in draft one, and that's what you see on lines 312 through 315.
[01:26:05] Basically, the way the law is set up, if someone is suspended, it depends on what you do, depending on what the suspension is for.
[01:26:16] But some can't do anything in the public school. Some, it seems to suggest they can.
[01:26:22] And Summit calls on the board to determine what should happen if they don't fall into certain categories.
[01:26:27] And so basically what we've done is we've put a requirement that UPAC will make an initial recommendation that will go into the consent to discipline.
[01:26:36] And then that will come to the board for approval.
[01:26:39] And so in that way, the board would be acting on that provision of the law.
[01:26:42] And so what you see there is basically adding a requirement that a consent to discipline that an educator signs will address those provisions of the law
[01:26:51] to make sure that it's clear in their consent to discipline
[01:26:54] what they can or can't do in a public school after a suspension.
[01:27:00] Okay.
[01:27:01] And what seems to me, if I can proceed, is that okay, Chair?
[01:27:06] Yes, please.
[01:27:07] So then I'm assuming that the restrictions then would be provided by
[01:27:17] or proposed restrictions subject to the board's acceptance
[01:27:21] would be proposed by staff.
[01:27:23] Is that...
[01:27:25] I'm intending to put the question to UPAC
[01:27:28] and to ask them,
[01:27:29] what do you want us to take to the educator?
[01:27:32] So in those cases,
[01:27:33] it would actually kind of be a two-step determination for UPAC.
[01:27:36] Do you want to recommend a suspension?
[01:27:38] And if so, if we have to,
[01:27:40] if it's not clear under the law,
[01:27:42] we would then ask them,
[01:27:43] what, if any, should be the restrictions
[01:27:45] on non-licensed work in public schools.
[01:27:48] So just to flesh that out a little bit,
[01:27:51] I don't remember the exact language in the bill,
[01:27:54] but I think it said something like administrative.
[01:27:58] Did it say administrative offenses?
[01:28:03] So, and maybe the exact word's not necessary for my question,
[01:28:06] but you would then propose that you would have that discussion
[01:28:12] with the UPAC members to say in their characterization,
[01:28:19] in their evaluation, would they say whatever the offenses were
[01:28:23] were administrative versus something else?
[01:28:26] I think staff would determine that,
[01:28:29] but then ask them what the consequence should be.
[01:28:32] I think what the nature of the suspension is is more a matter of law,
[01:28:37] but the bill has certain areas where determinations have to be made
[01:28:41] depending on where the offenses lie.
[01:28:44] And so that's where UPAC would make a recommendation
[01:28:46] is if it was one of those gray areas
[01:28:51] where it's not specifically classified in the bill.
[01:28:54] Then your answer is UPAC would make that recommendation
[01:28:58] to first the educator and then to the board, right?
[01:29:04] Yes.
[01:29:05] Okay.
[01:29:06] OK. Because that was one of my really concerning questions about the bill itself is who would do that work and how would do how would that be done?
[01:29:18] And so.
[01:29:21] That would also allow the educator to request a hearing if they thought that that was an unfair recommendation, that would be something that could be discussed in a hearing as well.
[01:29:31] In your opinion, if I can continue for a minute, Amanda, is that OK?
[01:29:34] Yes, please.
[01:29:36] in your opinion ben how much additional work discussion time is that going to take and and
[01:29:43] which what'll be your level of preparation to be able to address that knowledgeably do you have a
[01:29:51] sense of that i would suspect that in a typical case it would take another
[01:29:57] five minutes of discussion for the commission i'll do
[01:30:00] It could be a little more, depending. I don't know. We haven't had these come up yet because it only applies to cases that were first filed after May 1st.
[01:30:10] And it might take a little work for the attorneys getting ready to present the case to give some thought to that.
[01:30:17] They would need to add that to their reports, things like that.
[01:30:21] So there is some administrative legwork involved.
[01:30:25] And just one more, just, I know we're, I know we're kind of thinking out loud or speculating,
[01:30:30] so I don't want to, and I'm certainly not going to hold you to this because we're going
[01:30:35] to have to see how it plays out, but, um, uh, then I lost my train of thought, um, in
[01:30:43] terms of, oh, so do you think you would gradually be creating a, a, a rubric or a, we've used
[01:30:53] that before in another context so I don't want to confuse but a rubric or a list or a pattern of
[01:31:00] what kinds of things are considered administrative versus something else is that is that kind of what
[01:31:05] you've been how you think it would would develop it's a good question I haven't given a lot of
[01:31:10] thought to that but might be something that we would add into the matrix that we that we that we
[01:31:17] keep uh for for suspensions as to what restrictions are placed there so i think done in comparable
[01:31:25] cases so i think consistency would be really important i think in and as this plays out as
[01:31:32] this develops i think right i think that we would be held to that on review if there were appeals
[01:31:37] right thanks okay and then i'm ready to make a motion if you're ready um vice chair go ahead
[01:31:44] member there um i move that the committee approve r277-211 draft one uh utah professional practices
[01:31:57] advisory commission upac rules of procedure notification to educator complaints and final
[01:32:04] disciplinary actions sorry that's where you put in the draft one on first reading and forward to
[01:32:10] board for approval on second and final reading okay so the motion is that the committee approve
[01:32:15] r277-211 utah professional practices advisory commission rules and procedure notification to
[01:32:21] educators complaints and final disciplinary actions draft one on first reading and forward
[01:32:26] to the board for approval on second and final reading do we have any discussion to that motion
[01:32:34] um i would like to to speak in here because in our backups you notice that um we do have this
[01:32:40] draft one that's recommended by staff that's required basically with the code change as
[01:32:45] director rasmussen mentioned there were two other drafts uh by the chair carrie had had put in um
[01:32:52] as i've read through i did consider draft two and draft three draft three has even more additional
[01:32:59] adjustments and changes um i just wanted to speak to the drafts because they've been in
[01:33:04] in the backup. So I definitely want us to at least acknowledge those. Some of the concerns that I have
[01:33:09] with that is number one, we are in the middle of not one, but two audits on UPAC. We have our own
[01:33:18] USBE audit taking place. We also have an OLAG audit taking place on UPAC. And I'm really hesitant
[01:33:24] to make any changes to our rules if they're not comprehensive with all of our other rules.
[01:33:29] Sometimes I think we have unintended consequences if we're not looking at it in the whole or
[01:33:32] holistically with all of our partners. So that's my first concern about making any of these changes
[01:33:38] that are on these drafts. And my second concern is I feel like many of those are management,
[01:33:45] a management role and not a governance role. And I know that as a board, we've really been talking
[01:33:50] about what is our lane with governance versus management. And I feel like some of these
[01:33:53] amendments really do get into more of the superintendent's role in overseeing UPAC and
[01:33:59] takes away some of the executive director role of that, basically bypasses it when code,
[01:34:06] Utah law says that it's the role of the director to do certain things. So I'm just concerned about
[01:34:11] some of those changes. And so I do support moving draft one, moving forward. And after those audits
[01:34:17] come back, if we do have additional changes that do need to be made, I'm happy to address those.
[01:34:23] i know one of the things we all want to improve is the time timeline for how long it takes to for
[01:34:29] anything to you know an educator to go through the process it's a lot because we have a lot of
[01:34:33] a lot of referrals and if everything's investigated it slows down that process so
[01:34:38] just a few comments there um and i appreciate you listening to me um member hall i just i wanted to
[01:34:45] ask if it would be appropriate to make a suggestion that maybe we do move um we continue this uh in
[01:34:51] our August board meeting, just so that we have all the members of the committee and
[01:34:55] we can have people speak to those things, just knowing that there's two other drafts
[01:35:00] um that are there just to give a fair opportunity for folks to be able to speak to that
[01:35:04] would that be appropriate to make um to make a motion to continue these upac um items in in
[01:35:12] august you're trying to oh to to the committee yes um you could absolutely make that motion let me
[01:35:19] ask um director rasmussen is there as far as i just want to make sure as we're trying to stay
[01:35:24] in compliance with the law changes can you speak to the delay because my my inclination is let's
[01:35:31] pass this and then there's still a board there's a full board agenda where those other drafts could
[01:35:36] still continue to be addressed but that's just director rasmussen can you speak to the timeline
[01:35:41] of the law and and if we if that would delay our compliance with law if we were to push it
[01:35:47] we would need to do rulemaking to implement the law by november 1st is my understanding so we have
[01:35:53] a couple months if you really wanted to push it out. We will be bringing one other rule,
[01:35:58] I believe, to comply with that rule, that law for the rule on the hearings just to
[01:36:05] make sure that we are covering that issue in hearings if they come up. But we specifically
[01:36:12] brought this one forward now because Board Member Kerry had wanted to bring the rule forward and
[01:36:17] didn't want to bring it up twice okay but what i'm hearing you say is that you do have to bring this
[01:36:24] back anyways well no we're going to bring another rule oh not this one a different rule yes okay i
[01:36:34] i see so um remember how you're welcome to make if you would like to make a motion that's absolutely
[01:36:39] in order um if you'd like to make a motion to to move this to our august committee meeting you're
[01:36:45] absolutely welcome to make that motion and could i if i do make the motion can i um include the
[01:36:51] other you pack uh items that are there the 9 10 and 11 those items or do i have to do them all
[01:36:57] individually um it's up it's up to him i think how he does that yeah i think i just i just kind
[01:37:07] of want to throw them all in there if we could so i guess that would be item uh nine and ten
[01:37:12] And then the 11 on the agenda, the 6001, 6002, and then the current 211.
[01:37:21] I think we should handle them separately.
[01:37:23] Do you think so?
[01:37:25] I personally do.
[01:37:27] Well, sorry, I just won't get a turn once again.
[01:37:31] It's okay.
[01:37:32] That's just a suggestion that I was making, and I thought it'd just be good to get all five of our committee members on board on deck to discuss these things at the same time.
[01:37:42] and I do agree with you Amanda I think there's a lot of changes that are being you know a lot of
[01:37:46] things that are happening right now with UPAC and and you know the hesitation to make any any big
[01:37:51] changes is it's it's it's a big deal but I'd like to be able to discuss it with the whole committee
[01:37:55] if it's possible yeah okay so the motion is the committee continue items 1.9 1.10 and 1.11 to the
[01:38:04] August meeting. Member Lear, you have your hand raised. I do. Well, first to my earlier
[01:38:11] interruption, I think we probably, well, when it's phrased that way, it doesn't feel as
[01:38:17] sort of inappropriate. That feels like an appropriate way to continue these items.
[01:38:28] I guess let me, then maybe what I'd like to do is speak to these so that at least it's on the record of why I will be voting no in terms of continuing, and especially when it says to the August meeting, if that's okay.
[01:38:48] Is this a good time to do that, Amanda?
[01:38:50] Yes, please.
[01:38:51] Okay. I too have a lot of concerns about R-277-211 to start with that, since we're going to lump these all together. I have a number of concerns. I have three or four pages of concerns that I won't make you listen to on a summer afternoon, but let me mention two or three of them that are my greatest concerns.
[01:39:13] First, I have said continually, in addition to the pending audits, the ongoing audits, I have wanted to have collaboration on changes to UPAC rules.
[01:39:26] That's what took place a number of years ago when there were significant changes.
[01:39:31] And it was hard work, but it was well worth it because I think that the rules have endured and done quite well for more than 10 years in serving the board.
[01:39:43] So I really, really, before we start doing significant, making significant changes to the UPAC rules, in addition to seeing what the results of the audits are, which we know won't be finalized until the very end of the year, if not January.
[01:40:00] I also would like to have some collaboration with some of the stakeholders, similar to what we had in one of our lawn licensing meetings.
[01:40:10] I'm also concerned that in making these changes, we have to address the workload and the real, the sort of real, the realism of what we have in terms of funding and personnel.
[01:40:25] and the significant changes and turnover we're experiencing right now.
[01:40:31] So some of the changes in these rules, I think, would increase the existing workload
[01:40:38] at the same time we see our employees and especially our experienced employees dwindling.
[01:40:48] And the third, another concern I have is some of these changes are complicated by ongoing cases.
[01:41:01] So, for instance, the change that would set a half-fast six-month timeline is a complicated change to make
[01:41:10] in light of the fact that we have probably 50-ish guessing cases that are in the pipeline.
[01:41:19] So that would concern me greatly, too.
[01:41:23] And then finally, I feel like we need to look at these rules holistically, not one at a time,
[01:41:37] and make sure that the changes we might make in one rule don't confound another rule.
[01:41:43] So those are just some of my really big overall concerns.
[01:41:47] I was prepared with 20 or so amendments just for starters in R277-211, but I won't go into those.
[01:41:56] I just have grave concerns, and I especially have concerns in this motion that they'd be continued to the August meeting
[01:42:04] when subsequent meetings might be more appropriate.
[01:42:10] Thank you, Member Lear.
[01:42:12] Member Hall, did you have any other comments on this motion?
[01:42:15] I don't disagree with Member Lear.
[01:42:17] I just think that if we were going to make the decision
[01:42:19] to make other motions or to do more work,
[01:42:23] it'd be great to make it as a full committee together.
[01:42:27] So that's the only reason I want to continue those
[01:42:29] to give us an opportunity.
[01:42:31] This committee has proven that they can come together
[01:42:33] to do good work it just happened around 322 and to do what's necessary so i just wanted to have
[01:42:39] all five at the table to make the decisions moving forward when it comes to these upac rules i think
[01:42:44] we can we can definitely do it and do the right thing here too as well amanda given that it's one
[01:42:50] could i move to amend this motion by member hall um yes that's in order um
[01:43:03] are you wanting to divide like you know i'm just no i i spoke too quickly now my brain's
[01:43:11] thinking through this so just give me give me about 10 seconds to just uh yeah and while you're
[01:43:18] thinking about that i just because there's only three of us i would like um if aag cooper can
[01:43:23] maybe help us make sure that we're in compliance with um with with our own rules if since we only
[01:43:29] have three members here. Typically, with all five members, we have to have three votes for
[01:43:35] something to pass. With three of us here, is it a majority or do we still have to have three votes
[01:43:41] to pass a motion? Majority of the quorum, so two votes. Yeah. Two votes. Okay. Oh, thank you.
[01:43:54] In light of that, let me, I don't have a motion to make.
[01:43:58] Let's just go ahead and vote on Gerard's motion.
[01:44:02] Yeah, I actually would like to make a motion to divide.
[01:44:06] I would like to divide it with 1.9 as one item and then 1.10 and 1.11 as a separate motion.
[01:44:20] And the reason for that is there are some things that I think do warrant more discussion
[01:44:30] and others that I just am not in a place to vote for in light of the fact that we're having
[01:44:37] some audits in place for item 1.9.
[01:44:40] So the motion is there any objection to dividing?
[01:44:48] No.
[01:44:49] Okay.
[01:44:50] Thank you for that, Benny saved us the vote.
[01:44:55] So let's start with the motion first that the committee continue Item 1.
[01:45:00] 1.9 actually yeah 1.9 to the august committee meeting any discussion to that motion okay with
[01:45:09] that one alone i would like to i i would like to amend that motion standing alone are you ready for
[01:45:16] that sure that the committee continue item 1.9 to a sub to a to a to a subsequent committee meeting
[01:45:27] I think that's the right word. Would that be the right to an upcoming subsequent committee meeting?
[01:45:38] So what can you explain that a little bit? Yes, I don't know that. It sounds like we have to November to be in compliance with the law. So if it's so if it's not ready, and I can be talked out of this, I'm, I'm just more looking to bend for guidance.
[01:46:02] If we bring both the rules together to be in compliance with 312, would that be better?
[01:46:14] And I'll just, if I can just point out, I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me.
[01:46:17] I think we were planning to bring these rules initially in August or September.
[01:46:22] I can't remember which.
[01:46:24] So we're going to bring the other one pretty soon.
[01:46:29] So I think either way you state that it would allow us to do what we need to.
[01:46:36] Okay.
[01:46:36] I just feel better about that so that we're not locked into August is what I'm saying.
[01:46:43] If it turns out that that's not the best date.
[01:46:48] So, yes, I'll make that motion.
[01:46:52] Okay.
[01:46:52] So the motion would be just to, we're just voting on the amendment, not the actual motion to continue.
[01:46:58] just the amendment to make it be that the committee
[01:47:01] continue the item 1.9 to a subsequent committee meeting.
[01:47:05] So we are just only adding in,
[01:47:07] or replacing August with a subsequent meeting,
[01:47:11] just so we know what we're voting on.
[01:47:13] - Thanks.
[01:47:14] - Okay, so with that,
[01:47:16] let's go ahead and vote on the motion to amend.
[01:47:21] Member Hall?
[01:47:23] - Yes, the motion to amend to a subsequent meeting?
[01:47:26] - Yes, just the motion to amend.
[01:47:27] that's that's fine you know what guys my computer's trying to force me to to do these updates
[01:47:33] require it says restarted five minutes so if i if i if you lose me it'll i'll be back okay
[01:47:39] and i would be a yes and then i will also be a yes on this so that passes unanimous three
[01:47:53] in favor with chair carry and member longacre absent so now we're going to actually vote on
[01:48:00] the motion that the committee continue item 1.9 to a subsequent committee meeting any discussion
[01:48:07] to this motion and i'm actually going to i'm going to actually speak um against this because
[01:48:16] i feel like this the changes that are already in draft one are the ones that need to be addressed
[01:48:23] And if we continue this, I'm still going to have the same opinion that we need to do all of the UPAC changes in policy together after we have both audits in place.
[01:48:36] So I don't feel like even if we postpone this to a different meeting, that I would be ready to make changes to it without that other information.
[01:48:46] So I'm actually going to speak against the motion to hold this one.
[01:48:51] But that's just my own opinion.
[01:48:53] so any other discussion to that motion okay so the motion is that the committee continue item 1.9 to
[01:49:06] a subsequent committee meeting member Hall yes member Lear no and I am also a no so that motion
[01:49:17] motion does fail two to one with member Howell being the yes vote and Chair Carey and a member
[01:49:23] Longacre absent.
[01:49:26] So with that we'll go to the underlying motion that was made that the committee approve R277-211
[01:49:34] Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission rules of procedure notification to educators
[01:49:40] complaints and final disciplinary actions draft one on first reading and forward to
[01:49:45] board for approval on second and final reading any further discussion before we take a vote
[01:49:53] okay member hall i'm a no okay member hall is a no member leer no
[01:50:00] oh no no wait a minute let me she's a double no this this would be to move draft one forward
[01:50:07] so just when we decided this is the one that the staff has recommended right and so i would
[01:50:14] i would say yes there we go okay and i am also a yes so that does pass sorry i'm i was trying
[01:50:23] to remember which draft we were talking about thank you no you're fine we have had lots of
[01:50:29] drafts today so you're okay so that does pass two to one with member hall uh the no vote and chair
[01:50:34] carry um and member longacre absent so now we will go to our motion i had divided so the motion
[01:50:42] that's left over would be to postpone or um let's see there was one that we were going to move there
[01:50:51] was a motion that member hall had made to divide right to so we would be voting on the committee
[01:50:57] continue item 1.10 and 1.11 right and if you lose me i'll be back i don't know if it's going to
[01:51:05] update my computer though i'm so sorry that's so lame
[01:51:09] i plugged in my computer and that's what set it all off
[01:51:15] it decided yeah it happens all the time rod let's make sure that we get this
[01:51:21] motion because we did split it so the motion is that the committee continues items 1.10 and 1.11
[01:51:26] to the August committee meeting.
[01:51:29] Any discussion to this motion?
[01:51:32] I do have some discussion.
[01:51:36] And now I got my, go ahead.
[01:51:38] Member Laird.
[01:51:42] I do not support continuing these items.
[01:51:49] I feel like, especially after our discussion last week
[01:51:53] about governance versus management, that these items are very much management items and not
[01:52:03] governance items. And holistically, they are not just pieces of them. I couldn't take pieces
[01:52:10] out of them and turn them into governance motions. And as I look through the definitions
[01:52:19] of the purposes of policies, the purposes of rules, that these are, these do not fit
[01:52:27] the purpose, these proposed policies don't fit the purposes of the policies and they
[01:52:33] don't fit purposes of rules.
[01:52:35] And they are, in fact, I believe, very much management issues that should be dealt with
[01:52:41] by the superintendent.
[01:52:42] superintendent or the executive director of UPAC is the superintendent's employee and the language
[01:52:50] for selecting UPAC members is directly per statute under the superintendent. So I believe those
[01:53:00] should all be management discussions and if the board wants to weigh in on those with the
[01:53:07] superintendent, the board has a way to do that as a board by discussing with the superintendent
[01:53:14] what their, some of their concerns or directions for both the conflict of interest proposal
[01:53:24] and also the staff directives. So we have a way to address that with the superintendent
[01:53:32] And she is firmly in charge of these issues. So I oppose these policies as proposed. I oppose them in a holistic way. And there's no point, as I'm concerned, or as I speak about this, there's no point in furthering the discussion.
[01:53:56] Thank you. I guess I do have a question. Maybe this is directed to, and I don't know which staff member or maybe even AAG Cooper. I'm not sure who to direct this to, but as I'm reading to the point that Member Lear is bringing up as far as some of these pieces, especially in 6001 when we're talking about maybe like a conflict of interest, those types of things.
[01:54:23] Part of me thinks that that would be more appropriate in a rule versus a policy, where a policy is kind of how we work versus where I see this.
[01:54:34] It's almost like we are now writing a policy for UPAC, where, to Member Lear's point, the superintendent is tasked with overseeing UPAC.
[01:54:45] Is a policy an appropriate place for this content, or would a rule be more appropriate?
[01:54:51] if i may on board policy 606 001 i had felt that was appropriate for policy
[01:55:00] if the board's not inclined to enter into this realm i'd probably have upac adopt this particular
[01:55:05] policy on their own for their own governance i think there's going to be some sort of a performance
[01:55:12] note or something on in the audit that comes out on this and so i'm i think this is something good
[01:55:18] to do proactively in some fashion or other but if the it doesn't necessarily have to be in policy
[01:55:24] to accomplish that, and to board over leaders' concerns,
[01:55:28] that's something that we could just as easily accomplish
[01:55:32] through an internal policy or through something that UPAC adopts.
[01:55:35] So I will say that 6001 is something that's already been vetted
[01:55:40] by UPAC and by some other groups, and so I think that's something
[01:55:45] that we'll pursue in some avenue, but it doesn't have to necessarily
[01:55:49] be in this format.
[01:55:52] Great. Thank you. And to that point, I had not thought of that possibility, Ben, and I think that would be an excellent way to go. I don't think UPAC has many policies, probably, but for that to be something that you or the superintendent ask the selected UPAC members to do, I think it'd be completely appropriate and responsible.
[01:56:20] And if you want to handle it through that, I would be supportive.
[01:56:24] I'm not saying it doesn't need to happen at all.
[01:56:27] I think that's something that could be internally discussed.
[01:56:30] And if you feel like it's necessary, then I would support that wholeheartedly.
[01:56:34] I just don't feel like it's something that the board should be imposing,
[01:56:40] given that these individuals are selected by the superintendent per statute.
[01:56:49] Great. Thank you. And with that, I mean, I look at this almost like the rule we were just talking
[01:56:57] about with the charter schools, where we have new management, we have a group that has understood
[01:57:02] there's some concerns, want to address it. I see that this is the same listening to Director
[01:57:06] Rasmussen. It sounds like there are already, our staff's already looking to address this with an
[01:57:11] internal policy. And given that a lot of it is a management versus a governance role, I would
[01:57:18] prefer to let staff address this. And then when we get the audit results back, if we need to address
[01:57:24] this in a different way, come back and do that. So I also would not like to continue these. I don't
[01:57:34] think that this is our role at this point. So the motion before us is that the committee continues
[01:57:41] items 1.10 and 1.11 to the August committee meeting. Any other discussion before we vote?
[01:57:48] Okay, Member Hall?
[01:57:51] Yes.
[01:57:53] Member Lear?
[01:57:54] No.
[01:57:55] And I'm also a no, so that motion does fail 2-1 with Member Hall being the yes vote.
[01:58:01] We have Chair Carey and Member Longacre absent.
[01:58:06] And with that, we've already talked about the sensitive material timeline.
[01:58:11] So do we cover all of our agenda items?
[01:58:13] Yes, we have.
[01:58:14] Move that we adjourn.
[01:58:16] okay motion to adjourn all those in favor yeah i think we need to do the underlying motion for
[01:58:25] the two policies as i was going to say i think we still need to vote on those policies
[01:58:29] i was i was oh i see because we didn't postpone them you didn't postpone yeah exactly i see i see
[01:58:37] okay so either vote for them or if there's no motion then nothing happens correct okay thank
[01:58:45] you for that correction. I apologize. So we will move to item 1.10. Do we have any discussion or
[01:58:52] motion? Okay, seeing none, we'll move to item 1.11. This is action board policy 6002 Utah
[01:59:05] professional practices advisory commission staff requirements. Is there any discussion or motion
[01:59:09] with 1.11. Okay, so we'll move on. 1.13, so policy request items. Is this the one, Elise, that you
[01:59:24] have anything for us on this? I do not. This would just be an appropriate place if any of
[01:59:33] you have policy requests oh that's what you were using that yeah i elise there is one um last year
[01:59:41] we made a policy request in our upac rules there was a line a section it was like section six of
[01:59:50] one of the rules and one of the discussions that we had had was that um we were getting so many
[01:59:56] referrals because leas had to refer
[02:00:00] So even if a parent called and complained about a teacher upset about a grading practice or whatever, that all had to be referred to UPAC if it was a complaint. And I'm wondering if there might be an appetite of this committee to move that forward. And the reason being is that I do think that that is one of our bottlenecks of UPAC. Since we've done that, it's added so many complaints that aren't having findings to it.
[02:00:30] And it's taking up so much energy and time, and we know that we're trying to be more effective and efficient.
[02:00:35] And if we already know that those, even if an LEA would never want to refer it, and we're not trusting our LEAs to do that,
[02:00:42] it just, in my opinion, it adds an extra layer of investigation that is not even necessary if we already know it's not going to be a complaint.
[02:00:51] Remember there?
[02:00:55] Yes, I think the board discussed this and voted on it at one point.
[02:01:00] So you're asking to revisit it, is what I was...
[02:01:04] Yes, and that's what I was asking.
[02:01:07] If there was appetite from either you or from Member Hall to maybe support that moving forward,
[02:01:12] we did vote as a board last year to make that recommendation.
[02:01:16] The legislature didn't act on it, but I do think that it's something that I'd like to reconsider.
[02:01:22] Oh, sorry for interrupting.
[02:01:23] I think the vote failed on the board is what I'm recalling, Amanda.
[02:01:27] I think it was one of our priorities, wasn't it, Elise?
[02:01:29] Wasn't it one of our legislative priorities?
[02:01:32] I thought the vote failed.
[02:01:34] So I'm looking right now, but I believe that board member Boggess had made that one
[02:01:39] and it was listed on the top 10 priorities for politics.
[02:01:43] And it didn't pass.
[02:01:44] And so it did pass the board, but it was not picked up by the legislature.
[02:01:50] That's correct.
[02:01:51] But I, yes, but I do believe that the legislature will be considering some, some policy or some law on UPAC, especially since they're doing a audit.
[02:02:01] And I think it's an item piece that we should be considering.
[02:02:07] I support that.
[02:02:08] I think that would be a really great issue to bring back to the legislature and see if there's interest this year.
[02:02:21] Okay. Do you want to make that motion, Amanda?
[02:02:26] I will. I was going to go back and look at one of our other previous board meetings.
[02:02:31] There was, it was a code change, though, that would have to be made.
[02:02:35] Yes.
[02:02:36] Okay. I believe it was this part of code right here. I don't want to put the code reference in here,
[02:02:42] but it was that the educator, that an LEA notified the state board, UPAC,
[02:02:48] and the educator of any complaints from a parent against an educator alleging a violation of
[02:02:53] educator licensing standards. Yes. What happened was the state board put it in rule and then the
[02:02:58] legislature enshrined it in code, which means the board doesn't have any flexibility to modify that
[02:03:04] as they see how things are proceeding. And so I think Board Over Boggess' motion was to
[02:03:10] take that out of codes. The board would have flexibility in revisiting that.
[02:03:15] Yes. Yes. So I would like to direct staff to prepare a policy request to repeal Utah Code subsection 53E-6-604 parenthesis 6.
[02:03:33] And from my understanding, this would then help. So then if there was a violation, LAMs would still be required to report to UPAC any violation that they decided was an educator standard violation. Is that correct, Ben and Elise?
[02:03:49] But this may help save us time and money and stop this bottleneck we have of items that are, and it's not even just for UPAC.
[02:04:00] It's also when we talk about how much it costs for administrators at LEAs, it takes more administrators to investigate and report all of these things.
[02:04:08] And if they already investigate and there's nothing to report, but they're required by law to report it anyways, I don't think it's a good use of our time or resources.
[02:04:16] And I think it also does a disservice to those that are going through UPAC to have such a slow process.
[02:04:22] So any discussion to that motion?
[02:04:28] Okay.
[02:04:29] So the motion is to direct staff to prepare policy requests to repeal Utah Code subsection 53E-6-604, parenthesis 6.
[02:04:39] We will do a roll call vote.
[02:04:41] Member Hall?
[02:04:42] Yes.
[02:04:44] Member Lear?
[02:04:45] Yes.
[02:04:46] And I'm also a yes, so that motion passes unanimously with Chair Cary and Member Longacre absent.
[02:04:53] Any other policy request discussions?
[02:05:00] not today okay all right with that i will take a final motion now i can move to adjourn
[02:05:08] thanks thanks for sorry for cutting you all right all those in favor say aye
[02:05:13] aye aye all right we are officially adjourned thank you for your time and thank you steph
[02:05:30] Thank you.