[00:00:04]
[1. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 PM]
IT IS 5:30 OCTOBER 30TH.WE'RE GOING TO START OUR SPECIAL MEETING.
THERE IS ONLY ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT AND THAT IS
[2. CULTURE]
THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR 2025 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.DR. ANZALONE, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>> THANKS, COREY. THANKS, EVERYONE FOR MAKING SOME TIME TONIGHT TO COME TOGETHER.
WE ARE TRYING TO STAY IN A PRETTY SIT TIMELINE WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY ELECTION COMING UP, OF COURSE.
A LOT OF BIG EVENTS HAPPENING.
RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN IS TO HOST A LEGISLATIVE RECEPTION ON THE 18TH, HOPEFULLY, IF ALL OF OUR NEWLY ELECTED AND OUR CURRENT ELECTED. ARE ABLE TO BE THERE.
WE'RE ACTUALLY REACHING OUT TO THEM PRIOR, JUST IN CASE TO HOLD THE DATE.
HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN MAKE IT IF YOU WIN.
STILL WELCOME IF YOU DON'T, I GUESS.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I KNOW OUR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY COMMITTEE WAS REALLY HOPING THAT THEY CAN HAVE SOMETHING TO ANCHOR THEIR WORK ON AND THEIR TALKING POINTS TO.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A SLEW OF STUDENTS AND PARENTS WHO ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT SPEAKING AND SHARING CELEBRATIONS, SHARING SOME NEEDS.
ALSO SOME GRATITUDE TOWARDS THE LEGISLATOR.
I THOUGHT TONIGHT IF WE CAN SETTLE ON SOME PRIORITIES, THAT'LL REALLY GUIDE US INTO WHEN IS THAT MEETING, GAIL, THAT IN BETWEEN THE NOVEMBER 18, WE SET, THE SEVENTH.
TWO DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION, WE WILL MEET.
YES. YEAH. THEN THE PLAN WOULD BE TO HOST THE RECEPTION ON THE 18TH.
WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A FEW DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE CAMAS LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FROM LAST YEAR, JUST AS A REFERENCE.
NOT A LOT HAS CHANGED, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME MINOR CHANGES.
THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FROM VANCOUVER, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING DISTRICTS.
THE ESD 112 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES, AND JUST SOMETHING TO POINT OUT ON THAT ONE.
THEY'VE ACTUALLY DONE A REALLY NICE JOB TO LOOK AT BOTH IMMEDIATE, AND LONG TERM PRIORITIES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE PAGE ON ESD, YOU HAVE YOUR IMMEDIATE PRIORITY ACTION ITEMS, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE AS A GROUP OF SUPERINTENDENTS.
WE'RE CALLING THE BIG 3, AND THEN ON THE BACK ARE MORE LOCALIZED ISSUES.
WE ALSO HAVE THE WSA LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED, BUT THAT'S THERE FOR YOU TO, AND TO ROUND IT OUT IS THE WEA 2025 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
>> I'LL JUST ADD TO, I REACHED OUT TO WAZDA AND GOT A HOLD OF MARISSA THERE AND SHE SAID THAT THE WAZDA BOARD WAS MEETING LAST NIGHT TO ADOPT THE FINAL VERSION OF THEIR PRIORITIES.
I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, BUT SHE DID SAY THAT THEIR PRIORITIES ARE SPED MSOC TRANSPORTATION, AND STAFFING.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE ACTUAL OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, BUT JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW.
>> THAT'S JUST WHAT SHE SAID IN HER EMAIL, SO I'M NOT SURE. I WOULD ASSUME.
>> I GUESS THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT, I GUESS NUMBER 1 WOULD BE, ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH AT LEAST THE BIG THREE AND ALIGNING TO THAT? I KNOW THERE'S SOME OF THOSE BIG THREE OR MAYBE ONE SPECIFICALLY, TRANSPORTATION, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IMPACT US GREATLY.
BUT I THINK THE OVERARCHING MOVEMENT IS FOR US TO TRY TO STAY AS ALIGNED AS POSSIBLE WITH THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.
IT ALSO HELPS ME AS YOUR SUPERINTENDENT TO SHARE OUR TALKING POINTS WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE.
THEN THE SECOND PIECE WOULD BE, IF YOU DO WANT TO STAY TO THOSE THREE, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL MORE LOCALIZED PRIORITIES THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? IF NOT, WE CAN JUST STICK TO THE BIG THREE.
IT'S REALLY JUST THE CONVERSATION, AND THEN HOPEFULLY YOUR DECISION IF WE CAN MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, THEN WE CAN START MAKING OUR DOCUMENTS TOMORROW, SO WE'LL BE READY.
>> I LIKE THE ORDER THAT VANCOUVER HAS DONE IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT THE SAME ORDER, BUT THEY HAVE FOUR OF THE SIX THAT THE ESD HAS, BUT JUST IN DIFFERENT ORDER.
THEY HAVE SPECIAL ED FUNDING, THEN MSOC, THEN PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL, AND STUDENT TRANSPORTATION.
I LIKE HAVING STUDENT TRANSPORTATION WHILE IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE FOR MYSELF.
IT'D BE NICE IF IT WAS ON TOP 4, BUT LIKE IS NUMBER 4.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL IS NUMBER 1.
THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET IT, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE UP THERE BEING DEMANDED EACH TIME AND THEN SPECIAL ED AND MSOC.
IT SEEMED LIKE MSOC, AGAIN, LIKE JASON WAS EXPLAINING, THAT DEALS WITH A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE PI OF OUR BUDGET.
[00:05:01]
YEAH, IT'D BE GREAT TO BOOST THAT UP, BUT THAT'S NOT THE MAJOR REASON WE'RE CUTTING FUNDS.>> I AM WITH YOU ON THE PROTOTYPICAL MODEL.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT A LOT LATELY.
HEARING WAZDA, WHEN YOU SAID ONE OF THE WAS STAFFING, I WONDER IF THAT ALSO MEANT PROTOTYPICAL MODEL, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING FOR A LONG TIME THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND I LIKE HAVING THE WORD PROTOTYPICAL MODEL IN THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT.
I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE.
>> DO WE WANT ANYTHING ABOUT REGIONALIZATION OR LA?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY IS I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE.
>> MAYBE SHOULD WE PUT THAT INSTEAD OF TRANSPORTATION?
>> WELL, ARE WE JUST SAYING, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO THREE?
>> OH, I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST MAKING THAT UP.
BUT I ALSO, I THINK WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD, I THINK REGIONALIZATION ON RRS BECAUSE IT IS A BIG FACTOR FOR US.
I KNOW IT MIGHT NOT BE A FACTOR TO EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT PART OF HAVING OUR OWN IS LIKE, WHAT ARE THE BIG ONES THAT AFFECT US, BUT ALSO THIS IS ONE THAT AFFECTS US.
>> I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF YOU HAVE YOUR TOP 3 ON ONE PAGE.
>> YEAH, I LIKE THAT TOO. [BACKGROUND]
>> THE OTHER THREE ON THE OTHER PAGE.
>> CAN YOU JUST SPEAK A LITTLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION? IS THAT A CONCERN OR WHERE DO WE STAND ON THAT?
>> SURE. OVERALL, TRANSPORTATION IS VERY UNDERFUNDED ACROSS THE STATE, AND FOR US WE RECEIVE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE AMOUNT OF ROUTES AND THE AMOUNT OF BUSES WE HAVE.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SOME OF THE LARGER URBAN DISTRICTS IS THAT STUDENTS ARE BEING ASKED TO SPEND, GO LONGER DISTANCES TO THEIR BUS STOPS OR TO SCHOOL.
SOMETIMES AS LONG AS THREE MILES.
FULLY FUNDING TRANSPORTATION WOULD ALLOW THOSE ROUTES TO BE CUT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
ULTIMATELY LESS STUDENTS ON THE BUS, IT WOULDN'T BE AS PACKED.
THERE ARE TWO OTHER THINGS, BUT WE DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE THAT ISSUE HERE.
I WOULD BE CONCERNED IF WE DIDN'T PUT IT ON AT ALL JUST BECAUSE IT MAY NOT SHOW CONGRUENT WITH THE OTHER REGIONS, BUT I LIKE WHAT CONNIE IS SAYING AS FAR AS MAYBE CHANGING THE ORDER.
>> ON THE BACK OF VANCOUVER'S FOR THE TRANSPORTATION.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE FUNDING MODEL MOST DISTRICTS, MANY DISTRICTS EXPERIENCE SIGNIFICANT FUNDING GAPS.
WE APPRECIATE THE 2022 AND 2023 LEGISLATORS PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO ADDRESS EXCESS COSTS TO TRANSPORT SPECIAL PASSENGERS.
HOWEVER, IT'S TIME TO COMPREHENSIVELY FIX THE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION MODEL. I THINK THAT.
WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY SUFFERING AS MUCH AS SOME OTHER DISTRICTS, BUT AGAIN, IT'S A MODEL THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO ECHO THAT AS WELL.
>> I LIKE ON OURS, HOW WE PUT THE SUGGESTED STRATEGIES.
>> THOSE ARE ALWAYS NOT THE SAME FOR EVERYONE TOO.
I KNOW WHEN WE TALK SPECIAL EDUCATION, I'M NOT GOING TO GET ALL THIS RIGHT, BUT SOMETIMES THEY MAKE INCREASES TO THINGS THAT DOES NOT HELP US AT ALL.
>> SURE. LIKE LAST TIME THEY INCREASED THE CAP, THAT DOESN'T HELP US BECAUSE WE WEREN'T HITTING.
>> WE PUT ENHANCE THE PAST MULTIPLIER.
>> I LIKE WHEN WE PUT THINGS THAT WE'RE IN THE SAME.
WE WANT SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING, BUT THIS IS GOING TO HELP US.
I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE THOSE LITTLE SUGGESTED STRATEGIES ON OURS.
>> ALSO, TRACY, WHAT IT DOES IS ALIGNS TO THE INCLUSION MODEL.
WE ARE REALLY KEEN ON TRYING TO MOVE STUDENTS TO THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT.
WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS TEAR IT.
RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T RECEIVE MORE FUNDING FOR PROMOTING INCLUSION.
THIS WOULD ACTUALLY FLIP THAT MODEL.
IF A STUDENT IS IN REGULAR ED 80% OF THE TIME, WE RECEIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR THAT.
BUT IF A STUDENT IS ACTUALLY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION LIKE 90% OF THE TIME, WE WOULD RECEIVE MORE FUNDING UNDER THIS MODEL.
>> ARE WE THINK THAT THE EASIEST WAY TO TACKLE THIS BE TO WORK FROM ONE OF THESE TEMPLATES? DO WE WANT TO WORK FROM OURS FROM LAST YEAR, OR DO WE WANT TO WORK FROM ANOTHER.
IS THERE A FORMAT HERE THAT LOOKS BETTER FOR YOU? I THINK IF I'M LOOKING AT OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES, AND IT FEELS WEIRD SAYING THAT THESE ARE FALLING OFF, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'VE PUSHED ON MENTAL HEALTH FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS?
[00:10:03]
WE GOT THAT INCREASE IN COUNSELING, AND BEHAVIORAL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.ARE WE THINKING THAT WE SHOULD REPLACE THAT WITH ONE OF THE OTHERS.
>> OR DO WE ADD IT INTO FUNDING? [OVERLAPPING]
>> BACK SIDE, WHERE, LIKE, MAYBE THAT ONE GOES FARTHER DOWN THE LINE.
>> I'M ALSO JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S A PUSH.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE OTHER PRIORITIES, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYBODY ELSE IS MENTIONING IT.
I DO WANT TO THINK ABOUT JUST WHAT THE.
>> WELL, WEA HAD IT ON AND THEIRS.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING COMES UNDER THIS FUNDING FACTORS.
SPECIAL ED COULD FALL UNDER THAT.
THE LEVY EQUALIZATION COULD FALL INTO THAT, TRANSPORTATION COULD FALL INTO THAT.
BECAUSE WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BE FUNDED FOR HALF OF THE SLOTS.
WE HAVE 18 SLOTS, WE WERE RECENTLY TOLD FROM THE STATE THAT WE ARE ONLY GOING TO POTENTIALLY RECEIVE FUNDING FOR HALF OF THOSE STUDENTS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE OTHER HALF, I MEAN, OUR ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TRY TO EXPAND TO AT LEAST ONE OTHER SCHOOL, 18 ADDITIONAL SLOTS.
RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, AND IF ANYTHING, WE MAY END UP HAVING TO FUND THOSE ADDITIONAL NINE STUDENTS OR THE PROGRAM GOES AWAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE CONCRETE DATA YET ON HOW THOSE KIDS ARE DOING NOW THAT THEY'RE IN KINDERGARTEN OR FIRST GRADE.
BUT TO CONNIE'S POINT, THAT'S PART OF THE FUNDING MECHANISM AS WELL.
CONNIE, JUST ON THE PROTOTYPICAL, I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING IT TO THE TOP OF THE LIST.
I THINK JUST THE CAUTION WOULD BE IS THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING THE APPETITE THIS SESSION TO HAVE A COMPLETE RESTRUCTURING.
I THINK THAT'S WHY ESD PUT IT ON THEIR LONG TERM SIDE, IF YOU SEE HOW THEY DID THAT.
>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO OVER ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW THAT IS THE ANSWER. YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> I GET THAT. BUT IF THEY DON'T SEE IT ON OUR TOP 3, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP THE APPETITE.
>> IT'S NUMBER 3 ON VANCOUVER'S, IT JUST ON THE BACK SIDE.
VANCOUVER PUBLIC SCHOOL. THEY HAVE IT UP THERE.
>> IF IT'S IN THE TOP 3, WHETHER IT'S ONE OR TWO OR THREE, WHATEVER, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE, I WOULD FEEL STRONGLY THAT SHOULD BE ON THE FRONT PAGE.
>> YEAH I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE, I UNDERSTAND WHY OTHER DISTRICTS WOULD HAVE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION MORE UP TOWARDS THE TOP.
I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT IS ONE OF OUR TOP 3.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'LL TAKE ANY FIXES TO ANYTHING.
I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE.
I ALMOST FEEL LIKE IF WE WERE LOOKING LIKE IF I WERE TO RANK FROM THE ESD ONE.
I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY ALL IN AGREEMENT LIKE FULLY FUNDED SPECIAL EDUCATION SHOULD PROBABLY BE THE TOP 1.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE. BUT THEN I FEEL LIKE TRANSPORTATION COULD FALL BACK TO ONE OF THE LONG TERM REQUESTS.
>> I ALSO THINK THE MSOC, IT'S NUMBER 3 ON ESD, IT'S NUMBER 2 ON VANCOUVER.
>> ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE FLEXIBILITY THAT IT PROVIDES.
WHEN FUNDING GOES THERE, WE CAN MOVE THAT MONEY IN SUCH UNGUARDED WAYS.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO HIGH IN PRIORITY.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER EASY ONE THAT WASHINGTON SAY EASY, BUT IT'S EASILY EXPLAINED.
WHEN JASON IS ALWAYS SHOWING THE GRAPHICS OF LIKE, YOUR GROCERIES HAVE GONE UP, YOUR INSURANCE HAS GONE UP, YOUR GAS HAS GONE UP.
THAT'S ONE THAT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND.
>> BUT WHEN WE'RE IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, HE TALKS ABOUT THAT SMALL PART OF THE PI, THAT, THAT INFLATION IS NOT REALLY A BIG DRIVING FACTOR IN OUR BUDGET WOES.
OF COURSE, YEAH, IT HAS GONE UP, BUT THIS LITTLE SECTION OF THE PI HAS GONE UP.
DEFINITELY, THAT HAS ALL GONE UP AND IT'S COSTING MONEY.
>> BUT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT THIS BIG PROTOTYPICAL MODEL?
>> BUT IT NEEDS TO BE ON THERE.
I THINK WE NEED TO PROVIDE BITE SIZE PIECES, BUT WITH AN OVERARCHING, WE NEED THESE FUNDING MODELS FIXED.
WE NEED TRANSPORTATION FUNDING MODEL FIXED.
WE NEED SPECIAL-ED MODEL FIXED.
THEN MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SO OFTEN, THEY'VE MADE FIXES TO THE SPECIAL-ED FUNDING BY INCREASING THE CAP, WHICH DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN SAY OUR MARKET STRATEGIES.
[00:15:03]
I LIKE HOW BANKO PUTS IT AS AN ACTION REQUEST.>> AM I HEARING YOU CORRECTLY THAT SPECIAL EDUCATION WILL STAY NUMBER 1 FOR CSD?
>> I DO LIKE WHAT YOU SAID, I LIKE HOW THEY PHRASE IT AS THE ACTION REQUEST.
>> THIS IS LIKE I THINK CORREY SAID, REMOVE THE FUNDING CAP, INCREASE THE PER STUDENT MULTIPLIER, AND PROVIDE AMPLE SAFETY NET FUNDING.
REMOVING THAT FUNDING CAP DOES NOTHING FOR US, RIGHT?
>> YEAH. WE COULD LIST IT IF IT WILL HELP INCREASE THE PER STUDENT MULTIPLIER.
>> BUT FOR US, IF THEY'RE, WELL, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE CAP, YOU'RE WELCOME. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR US.
>> OUR TWO SUGGESTED STRATEGIES FOR 2024 MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE TWO THAT WE WANT, WE COULD MENTION THEY REMOVE THE FUNDING CAP, BUT DOESN'T THAT MIX THE MESSAGE THAT WE DON'T NEED THAT.
>> OUR TWO SUGGESTED STRATEGIES FOR 2024 COVER THOSE TWO ASPECTS.
INCREASING THE STUDENT MULTIPLIER.
I WOULD JUST KEEP ONE AS IT IS, UNCHANGED.
>> IF YOU EXPAND IT, SOMEONE MIGHT SAY, WHY THE CHANGE.
I KNOW WE DON'T NEED THAT. THAT'S TRUE.
>> YOU REALLY SHOULD JUST BE ECHOING THE PORTIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US.
>> HOWEVER, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT SUGGESTED STRATEGIES CHANGE TO ACTION REQUEST? DO YOU LIKE THAT TERMINOLOGY BETTER?
>> I LIKE ACTION REQUEST. YEAH.
>> THE NUMBER 2 FROM LAST YEAR, WERE WE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT REGIONALIZATION?
>> YEAH. WE REALLY WERE MAINLY BECAUSE WE WERE STILL RECEIVING THE EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WASA, THEY COMBINE BOTH THERE.
SO THEY SAY MODIFY REGIONALIZATION EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
>> SORRY. WHAT DID THEY SAY AGAIN?
>> WASA ON PAGE 3, ONE OF THEIR PRIORITIES IS TO MODIFY REGIONALIZATION SLASH EXPERIENCE FACTOR.
THE CURRENT CALCULATION OF THESE FACTORS HAS EXACERBATED INEQUITIES BETWEEN DISTRICTS AND MUST BE UPDATED SWIFTLY.
>> WELL, WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT WITH THAT IS THE LEGISLATURE TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT LAST TIME AROUND AND WHAT THEY DID IS INSTEAD OF RAISING EVERYBODY ELSE UP TO WHERE WE WERE, THEY PUSHED US DOWN TO WHERE EVERYBODY ELSE WAS.
SO IT REALLY MADE THINGS WORSE IN A LOT OF WAYS OR AT LEAST WE TREADED WATER BECAUSE WE GOT THE EXPERIENCE FACTOR IN THE CERTIFICATED STAFF BUT THEN THEY CHOPPED OFF REGIONALIZATION.
>> THE MODEL IS ALMOST MORE IMPORTANT.
THE MODEL SEEMS TO BE THE PRIORITY.
>> YEAH, OR JUST LIKE SOMEHOW WE'RE TYING REGIONALIZATION TO ACTUAL COST OF LIVING.
I'D PUT DOWN TWO, I HAD SPECIAL-ED FIRST, TWO, I'D PUT DOWN THE MODEL.
THAT SHOULD REALLY BE THE PRIORITY BECAUSE YOU COULD CHANGE ALL SORTS OF ASPECTS.
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT IF WE'RE TRYING TO ALSO USE SOME OF THE SAME LANGUAGE AS OTHER PEOPLE, I THINK I ACTUALLY LIKE HOW VANCOUVER AND EVEN THE ESD ONE TALK ABOUT IT, AND WE COULD USE A LOT OF THAT SAME LANGUAGE,.
>> ARE YOU LOOKING A SIX FOR EST AT THE BOTTOM?
>> THEY PUT A THREE. VANCOUVER HAD A THREE.
>> YEAH. MAYBE MOVE THAT ONE UP HIGHER FOR US.
I DO LIKE TO THINK VANCOUVER'S IS JUST A LITTLE MORE SUCCINCT.
>> WELL, AND SOMETIMES IN THIS, SOMETIMES A LOT OF WORDS, YOU LOSE PEOPLE.
>> I THINK THE WASA ONE IS WAY TOO MUCH.
>> I WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAND SOMETHING TO OUR LEGISLATORS AND SAY, HERE'S OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'D LOVE TO TALK YOU THROUGH THESE.
>> SHOULD BE A SUBSET OF WHAT ESD HAS HERE.
[00:20:02]
>> ANYWAY, NOW THAT EVERYTHING'S GOING TO ROLL UP IN THE SAME ORDER, BUT REALLY THAT'S WHY THIS SHOULD BE REDUCED, BUT I LIKE THE WORDING HERE IS JUST THERE'S A LOT THERE, BUT IT IS SERVING THE TOTALITY OF 30-PLUS DISTRICTS THAT ARE REPRESENTED.
>> I LIKE HOW OURS LOOKS CLEAN, BUT ONE THING THAT'S MISSING IS THERE'S ZERO CONTACT INFORMATION ON THERE.
VANCOUVER AT LEAST PUT THE SUPERINTENDENT.
YOU GOT TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THAT.
I THINK AT LEAST SOMEWHERE ON THERE, IT NEEDS TO HAVE SOMEBODY'S PHONE NUMBER, E-MAIL.
>> YEAH, LET'S [INAUDIBLE] IN THERE.
>> NOW, FOR THE ESD ONE, READ NUMBER 6 MORE CLOSELY BECAUSE FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, AN INITIAL PRIORITY SHOULD BE THE COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE 1 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STAFFING ENRICHMENT WORKGROUP'S IN 2019, IMPROVING STAFFING ALLOCATIONS FOR CRITICALLY NEEDED SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO CLOSE ACHIEVEMENT GAPS, ADDING CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COACHES AS AN ENHANCEMENT TO THE PSFM, THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL FUNDING MODEL.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT REALLY ADDRESSES WHERE OUR ISSUE IS.
>> WORD FOR WORD FROM THE WASA ONE.
>> AT THE BOTTOM PART OF PAGE 3, THAT IS WORD FOR WORD.
THEY JUST BULLETED IT OUT INSTEAD OF HAVING IT IN A SENTENCE.
>> WHEREAS, WHEN YOU LOOK OVER AT THE VANCOUVER ONE, I LIKE THE FACT THAT VANCOUVER'S IS A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE.
THEY USE THE WORDS LIKE UNREALISTIC AND OUTDATED.
>> I THINK IT'S SPECIFIC TOO, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU TAKE WHAT THE DISTRICT THAT IS THE LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR ROLL UP OF 30-PLUS AND YOU CALL IT WHAT'S YOURS.
I LIKE THE MESSAGINGS THE SAME AS WASA THERE AT THE HIGH LEVEL, BUT THEN YOU SAY, WHAT ARE THE KEY ASPECTS FOR US THAT FALL INTO THAT? WHEN YOU LOOK AT ESD, YOU'RE, IT'S CANVAS AS ROLLS UP JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HOPEFULLY. IT'S NOT UNIQUE.
>> BECAUSE VANCOUVER, IF YOU READ CLOSER TO THEIR ACTION REQUESTS, ARE ABOUT PARA EDUCATORS AND SUPPORT STAFF.
>> WELLNESS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND SECURITY PERSONNEL REFLECT THE CURRENT JOB MARKET, AND IT SAYS, "WE'RE FORCED TO AUGMENT SALARY AND BENEFIT COSTS BY AN AVERAGE OF 20%." I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TOO, THAT AMOUNT.
"WE STRUGGLE TO FILL ESSENTIAL POSITIONS.
OUR STUDENTS DESERVE A PROFESSIONAL STAFF."
>> I ALSO THINK WE CAN'T PUT TOO MANY WORDS IN HERE, BUT WHEN ON THIS ONE, IT SAYS IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED SINCE ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN 2010, THAT'S A LONG TIME AGO.
TO ROLL SOMETHING OUT AND NOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO IT SINCE 2010. THAT'S A LONG TIME.
>> THEY HAVE THESE VERY SPECIFIC ASK.
I THINK THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS MORE PARA SUPPORT, BUT IS INCREASING PAY FOR SUBSTITUTES OUR SECOND-MOST CRITICAL ASK FOR THE CHANGES IN THE PROTOTYPICAL MODEL? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SO MUCH THAT'S NOT COVERED IN THERE.
IS IT TEACHER TO STUDENT RATIOS, IS IT ADMIN, IS IT NURSES, THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S JUST BRING IT IN LINE WITH WHAT IT TAKES TO RUN A SCHOOL TODAY.
WE CAN PROVIDE, IF THEY WERE INTERESTED, THIS IS WHAT THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL WOULD LOOK LIKE.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A NURSE THERE EXCEPT FOR 20 MINUTES A DAY, HOWEVER YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SHARE IT ACROSS THE SCHOOLS.
JUST BUILD THAT VERSUS THIS IS WHAT OUR SCHOOLS ARE DOING.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT GOING ON THIS LEGISLATIVE AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION, SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THESE GIANT GAPS ARE, AND THEN WHAT ARE THOSE BIGGEST GAPS, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT BECAUSE PROBABLY NOT DO ANYTHING FOR THIS, BUT IF THEY DID JUST ONE THING AND THEY GET IT THIS LONG-TERM, WE NEED TO GET THIS GOING, HERE ARE THE BITE SIZE CHUNKS.
I THINK WE SHOULD PUT A COUPLE CHUNKS IN THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
WE RAISED OUR SUBSTITUTE PAY LAST BARGAINING SESSION SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS A COMPETITIVE, ARE WE NOT GETTING SUBS BECAUSE OF OUR PAY, IS THAT AN ISSUE FOR OUR DISTRICT?
>> WE'VE SEEN AN IMPROVEMENT, AND I THINK CLINTON MENTIONED THAT THE OTHER DAY.
OBVIOUSLY, IN THE LARGER, MORE URBAN DISTRICTS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE TEACHERS, MORE TEACHERS OUT, MORE COVERAGE NEEDED.
PLUS IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT LIKE CAMAS,
[00:25:03]
THERE'S SO MANY TIGHT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRINCIPALS AND SUBS AND TEACHERS AND SUBS.IT'S JUST THAT STILL BECOMES A DESTINATION FOR SUBSTITUTES, I THINK. YOU'RE RIGHT, CONNIE.
I DON'T THINK THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS, COUNSELING NEEDS, NURSING NEEDS.
>> VANCOUVER IS VERY BOLD HERE, WHERE THEY'RE, STRUGGLE TO FILL ESSENTIAL POSITIONS.
WHEN YOU ROLL IT UP TO ESD LEVEL, THAT LEVEL DOESN'T STATE THAT, BUT I THINK THAT'S THEIR UNIQUE PROBLEM.
IF IT'S NOT OUR UNIQUE PROBLEM [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE STICK CLOSE TO THE MESSAGING OF ESD, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TELL OUR OWN STORY TOO.
>> YOU FIND THE PARTS THAT ARE LESS PERTINENT.
>> LIKE IN THE ACTION STEPS WOULD BE WHAT WOULD HELP US SPECIFICALLY.
>> NUMBER 2, JUST TO TRY AND RECAP WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT HERE, HOW DO WE WANT TO FRAME NUMBER 2, DO WE WANT TO STILL CALL IT FUNDING FACTORS, DO WE WANT TO CALL IT FULLY FUND THE PROTOTYPICAL MODEL?
>> I LIKE UPDATE THE PROTOTYPICAL MODEL AND STAFF ALLOCATION FORMULA.
>> YOU LIKE THE VANCOUVER LANGUAGE MORE THAN THE NUMBER 6 ON THE ESD ONE JUST FOR HEADING?
>> BECAUSE IT'S LESS OF A SHORTAGE.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PROBLEM IS THEY'RE NOT FULLY FUNDING THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL IS THAT THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL IS NOT ADEQUATE TO FUND SCHOOLS.
>> OKAY. UPDATING THE PROTOTYPICAL MODEL AND STAFF ALLOCATION FORMULAS?
>> THEN UNDER OUR ACTION REQUESTS.
JUST REMINDER THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS BEFORE,WE HAVE FOCUSED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS ON REGIONALIZATION, DO WE WANT TO KEEP REITERATING THE FACT THAT WE ARE LOSERS IN THIS?
>> CAN WE PUT REGIONALIZATION IN WITH THAT NUMBER 2?
>> I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST REGIONALIZATION SHOULD BE THREE.
>> IT'S OWN ITEMS. IT'S SO ESSENTIAL FOR US.
THERE'S OTHER DISTRICTS IN THE STATE WHERE IT IS PROBABLY ALSO SO ESSENTIAL THAT IF YOU LUMP IT UNDER THERE, IT'S GOING TO GET LOST WHEN IT GETS ROLLED UP TO THE ESD LATER.
YOU TAKE EVERYONE IN AN AREA, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO ROLL IT UP, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CALLED OUT.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT I DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF, AND MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN HELP ME WITH THIS IS THE MONEY WE GET FOR REGIONALIZATION IS WHAT SECTION ARE OUR MSOCS, WHAT SECTION OF THAT BIG PIE OF OUR EXPENSES IS REGIONALIZATION, WHERE ARE THE BIG PIECES, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OUR MSOCS, PIECE OF THE PIE, AND THEN WE HAVE STAFFING COSTS, HOW BIG OF A SLICE OF OUR INCOME IS IT AND WHAT THE FIX WOULD LOOK LIKE? WHAT WOULD WE GET THE BIGGEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK ON? WHICH ARE THE CATEGORIES? I KNOW THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT REALLY THIS OTHER THING COULD BRING IN WAY MORE MONEY INTO OUR DISTRICT.
IF THEY CHANGE THE SPECIAL-ED MULTIPLIER, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE.
>> I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE BEING REALISTIC ABOUT SOME OF THIS STUFF TOO.
FOR REGIONALIZATION, WHAT OUR BUDGET IS ABOUT, WE USUALLY SAY ABOUT 89% SALARIES AND BENEFITS.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT NOW.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REGIONALIZATION.
>> WE'RE DECREASING 3% OR ONE? THAT ALL GOES INTO THE STAFFING.
THAT'S WHERE IT GOES TO, IS THE BIG PIECE OF THE PIE.
GETTING REGIONALIZATION FIXED WOULD PUT MONEY BACK IN THAT BIG PIECE OF THE PIE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME, SO I DON'T WANT TO DROP IT OFF, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE US SAYING THAT ONE.
I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IS GOING TO BE ON THAT TRAIN WITH US BESIDES US.
>> I THINK THAT ADDRESSING THE REGIONALIZATION ALSO ALLOWS US TO SLIP IN THERE A LITTLE BIT, THE HIGH COST OF LIVING.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP BANGING THAT DRUM.
[00:30:01]
>> IN OUR LAST LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES, THIS DECREASE IS PARADOXICAL, CONSIDERING CAMAS IS RISING EMPLOYEE COSTS AND LIVING EXPENSES.
AGAIN, WE'RE CALLING THAT OUT.
I DO THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO KEEP CALLING OUT THE FACT THAT OUR EMPLOYEE COSTS AND OUR LIVING EXPENSES ARE FAR OUTPACING ANY INCREASES THAT WE SEE FROM THE STATE.
>> MAYBE REGIONALIZATION COULD BE THREE FOR US IF WE WANT TO KEEP IT AS A SEPARATE.
>> I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THREE.
>> WE HAVE TO RAISE IT BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY CHANGE THE MODEL BUT CAN'T CHANGE THAT COMPONENT.
WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THE SAME SITUATION THREE YEARS FROM NOW.
SOME DISTRICTS ARE CALLING OUT TRANSPORTATION.
I HAD IT WRITTEN DOWN ON MINE, THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CALL THAT AS FOUR JUST BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE LONG IN THE DISTANCE WHERE IT BECOMES A PROBLEM FOR US, BUT FOR OTHER DISTRICTS, IT'S NUMBER 2.
I JUST THINK REGIONALIZATION IS ONE WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE DISTRICTS LIKE US THAT ARE GOING TO CALL OUT THAT SAME THING. WE'RE NOT JUST DOING IT FOR US.
I THINK WE WOULD BE SUPPORTING OTHERS THAT ARE ALSO HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM.
IF WE DON'T CALL IT OUT, WE'RE JUST ONE LESS VOICE OF OTHERS THAT ARE HAVING A HIGH COST OF LIVING AREA, AND WE'RE FALLING SHORT BECAUSE OF THAT.
THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
>> I THINK OUR LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE HAS GOTTEN PRETTY WELL VERSED ON THE REGIONALIZATION TOO BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR SO LONG WITH THEM, SO IT'S SOMETHING ON THERE.
I DO LIKE OUR STATEMENT ABOUT MAINTAIN STABLE FUNDING FACTORS OVER TIME BECAUSE IT REALLY MAKES ZERO SENSE THAT YOU WOULD DECREASE THINGS.
>> I THINK THAT ONE POINT THAT JASON HAS MADE ON THAT TOO, IT'S BEEN SO UNPREDICTABLE FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
AS BAD AS THE 1% A YEAR TICK OFF WAS, WE SAW THAT COMING AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WAS NOW IT'S 3%.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO CHOP IT ALL OFF IN ONE YEAR.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT TOO IS JUST HAVING SOME PREDICTABILITY ALLOWS US TO PLAN MORE LONG TERM.
WE'VE SEEN 1-3 IS NOT BAD WHEN IT COMPOUNDS MULTIPLE YEARS.
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ESCALATED.
OR AT LEAST MAYBE WE HAVE TO REWORD THAT PART TO SAY, IT'S NOT THE 1-3. ONE'S NOT BAD.
WHEN IT'S COMPOUNDED OVER MULTIPLE YEARS, IT GETS TO BE 5% AFTER THREE YEARS.
WE REALLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT PORTION.
THAT'S WHY I WOULD SUGGEST IT SHOULD BE THREE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DISTRICTS THAT WERE IMPACTED.
>> WHAT WE CAN SAY IS SINCE 2021, REGIONALIZATION FACTORS FOR CAMAS HAVE DECREASED BY 6% BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
>> THAT SHOULD BE MENTIONED BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T CHANGE, IT'S JUST GOING TO KEEP COMPOUNDING OVER.
>> WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO CHANGE AT ALL.
>> THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE LET EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTY SIT.
>> BUT SIX IS THE MINIMUM SO FAR UNLESS THEY DECIDE.
>> THEIR FIX WAS TO TRY AND MAKE EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTY THE SAME, AND SO THEY BROUGHT US DOWN TO SIX.
EVERYBODY ELSE WAS ALREADY AT SIX. LET ME BACK UP.
WE GOT BROUGHT DOWN TO SIX AND WE GOT THE ONE-AND-A-HALF EXPERIENCE FACTOR BOOST, JUST ON CLASSIFIED THOUGH.
THAT WAS LIKE A WASH. WE JUST ENDED UP TREADING WATER THERE.
NOT EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT EVERGREEN AND BATTLEGROUND, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WERE ALREADY AT SIX AND WITH THE EXPERIENCE FACTOR FIX, THEY GOT 1.5%.
THEY ACTUALLY EACH GOT A 1.5% INCREASE ON THEIR STAFFING, WHEREAS WE JUST REMAINED FLAT.
>> COREY, WAS THAT A GRADUAL DECREASE FOR US 12-6?
>> I WAS. BUT THEN THE LAST ONE WAS.
>> IF WE LOOK THROUGH THESE TWO, IT'S LIKE TWO OF THEM ARE INCREASE THE FUNDING WE GET FOR SPED AND MSOC.
THEN THERE'S UPDATE THE FUNDING FACTORS.
THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL, WE NEED TO FIX THE ALLOCATION FORMULAS.
IN TRANSPORTATION, THEY NEED TO FIX THE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FORMULA.
SOME OF THEM ARE FIXING THE MODELS AND THE OTHER ONE IS JUST, WE NEED MORE MONEY.
>> IT MIGHT BE BETTER, I WANTED TO SAY FIX THE MODEL BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR MONEY.
BUT FIXING THE MODEL WOULD GIVE US MORE MONEY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS ABOUT MONEY.
>> THEY'RE ALL ABOUT MONEY EVENTUALLY.
>> WELL, THEY'RE ALL ABOUT MONEY, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY LIKE MENTAL HEALTH.
[00:35:01]
PEOPLE TRANSPORTATION, MSOC COSTS, STAFFING ALLOCATE.>> I THINK IT'S VERY INTENTIONAL THAT EVERYTHING WE'RE ASKING FOR HAS MONEY ATTACHED TO IT BECAUSE WHAT THEY DON'T WANT IS MORE OF THESE UNFUNDED MANDATES AND PROGRAMS AT [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE DISTRICTS, INCLUDING ESTER BEEN HIT HARD, WHERE THERE'S SOME NEW REQUIREMENT AND THERE'S NO FUNDING TO FOLLOW IT SO NOW WE JUST HAVE TO COME UP WITH THAT 11.
>> IT WAS LIKE, IN OREGON WHEN THEY WANTED ELECTRIC BUSES EVERYWHERE AND THEY'RE LIKE HOW ARE WE GOING TO FUND IT? WE CAN'T FUND IT.
>> EVERYBODY WANTS IT, BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FUND IT? YOU HAVE TO WALK BACK ON THAT A LITTLE.
I THINK IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF OUR BIGGEST PROBLEMS.
>> THEN AM I HEARING NUMBER 1 SPED, NUMBER 2 PROTOTYPICAL MODEL, NUMBER 3 FUNDING FACTORS OR REGIONALIZATION? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE GROUP?
>> SORRY. I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY OR WE COULD HAVE TWO CATEGORIES AND ONE INCLUDES SPED AND MSOC, AND ONE INCLUDES FUNDING FACTORS, WHICH IS THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL AND TRANSPORTATION.
>> YOU'RE SAYING SPED AND MSOC IS THE SAME THING?
>> WELL, NO, THOSE WE'RE ASKING FOR.
WELL, I GUESS SPED WE WANT THEM TO CHANGE THE MODEL TOO.
MSOC THEY'RE UNDER-FUNDING US.
BUT THE OTHER ONES I'M TALKING ABOUT, IF WE'RE LIKE, CHANGE THE FUNDING FACTORS, THAT'S THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL, THAT'S THE TRANSPORTATION.
MAYBE SPED IS UNDER THERE TOO BECAUSE WE WANT THAT RATIO.
>> ISN'T MSOC A FUNDING FORMULA TOO?
>> IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE JUST NOT KEEPING UP.
HOW DID THEY LIST IT? MSOC FUNDING.
IT SAY, THE LEGISLATOR IMMEDIATELY ADDRESSED THE CRITICAL UNDER-FUNDING OF THIS ALLOCATIONS FOR SCHOOLS.
I WAS JUST UNDERLINING VANCOUVER'S WHERE IT SAID IT WAS A FUNDING MODEL.
I DON'T KNOW. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE CAN GET MORE ITEMS IN IF WE HAVE TWO PRIORITIES AND THEY INCLUDE THIS AND THIS.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO DILUTE IT TOO MUCH.
>> YEAH. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IF YOU'RE DOING THAT, THEN YOU'RE PUTTING MULTIPLE ASKS INTO ONE THING.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY SPECIFIC.
>> I LIKE THE WAY YOU DIVIDED THEM UP BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE, BUT THEN THE ASK BECOMES CONVOLUTED.
>> WELL, THEN MAYBE WE CAN DO THAT FOR OUR OWN MATERIALS FOR TALKING WITH THEM AND DO IT, BUT IN OUR PAPER WE GIVE TO THEM, HAVE IT MORE CLEAR.
>> WHEN YOU DIVIDE IT THE WAY YOU'VE DIVIDED IT, MAKES SENSE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR ALL SAME THINGS, THEY ARE SEPARATE.
>> HERE'S WHAT WE NEED MORE MONEY FOR RIGHT NOW, AND HERE IF YOU CHANGE THE FORMULA, THAT'S GOING TO GIVE US MORE MONEY.
>> THE SOLUTION OF CHANGING THE FORMULA SEEMS LIKE, WE CAN DO THAT AND NOT RECOGNIZE THAT ACTUALLY YOU'LL INCREASE THE MONEY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMEWHERE IN HERE JUST IN TERMS OF SOME OF OUR TALKING POINTS WITHIN THESE, JUST OUR GROWING RELIANCE ON LOCAL LEVY HAVING TO COVER ALL OF THIS STUFF. WHAT'S THAT?
>> YEAH. I LIKE THE LITTLE BLURB WE HAVE AT THE BEGINNING WHERE WE THANK THEM FOR THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T JUST WANT TO COME OFF AS BEING LIKE, I WANT THIS.
MAYBE WE CAN HAVE COMMS WORK THROUGH THIS OR SOMETHING, BUT I'D LOVE TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BASICALLY SAY, THE WAY THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY BEING FUNDED IS MAKING IT LESS AND LESS LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO KEEP CAMAS THE WAY WE'VE EXPECTED CAMAS TO BE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> I PUT PICTURES OF KIDS ON HERE.
>> JOHN ALREADY KNOWS WHICH ONE.
YOU WANT THE THUMBS UP ONE OR DO YOU WANT TO DIGITALLY DO IT WHERE THUMBS ARE DOWN? I DON'T KNOW. IT'S LIKE THAT?
>> I ALSO LIKED ON VANCOUVER'S.
THEY HAD THEIR GRADUATE, THIS LITTLE THING.
I REALLY LIKE OUR PROFILE OF A GRADUATE.
WE CAN PUT PICTURES OF KIDS, BUT ALSO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.
>> THIS IS THEIR STRATEGIC PLAN.
BUT WE COULD PUT OUR LITTLE THING THERE POTENTIALLY.
>> THEIR MISSION FOR SUPERINTENDENT.
>> WE HAVE THREE THINGS RIGHT NOW.
DO WE WANT TO KEEP IT AS THOSE THREE, OR DO WE WANT TO HAVE A SECOND PAGE?
>> WE COULD ALWAYS DO THE BACKSIDE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. DO WE WANT TO PUT ADDITIONAL REQUESTS ON HERE? DO WE WANT TO HAVE FOUR LIKE VANCOUVER?
[00:40:01]
>> OR WE'RE DOING SPECIAL ED FIRST, PROTOTYPICAL SECOND, AND TRANSPORTATION THIRD?
>> I THOUGHT WE'RE SAYING FUNDING THIRD.
>> MAYBE WORK THROUGH IT. WE COULD KEEP IT AS FUNDING FACTORS OR REGIONALIZATION.
>> THE WORD REGIONALIZATION THEY WILL KNOW.
>> REGIONALIZATION AND COST OF LIVING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> I THINK SINCE THOSE THREE ARE SO IMPORTANT, I WOULD LOVE IF WE COULD SQUEEZE THEM ON THE FRONT PAGE.
BECAUSE THE BACK PAGE, I THINK IS IMPORTANT, BUT THOSE THREE, I THINK IF WE CAN HIT THEM ON THE FRONT PAGE.
>> I WOULD SAY, MSOC HAS FALLEN DOWN THE LIST.
WHILE IT'S NOT A BIG ONE, I FEEL ONCE AGAIN THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY BENEFITS FROM.
>> SOONER OR LATER THAT'S GOING TO GET ADDRESSED BECAUSE IS EVERYBODY.
INFLATION HERE IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.
EVERYONE'S PAYING MORE FOR EVERYTHING.
IT IMPACTS EVERYONE EQUALLY TO A GREAT DEGREE.
>> THE FUNDING FACTORS FOR THE ACTION REQUEST, IT SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC BECAUSE IF WE SAY RESTORE THE ORIGINAL REGIONALIZATION FACTORS AND YOU HAVE A NEW LEGISLATOR, HAS TO GO AND DIG UP WHAT THAT IS.
IT'S LIKE WE STARTED AT 12, AND NOW WE'RE DOWN AT SIX IN FOUR YEARS.
>> OR MAYBE WE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ACCURATELY REFLECTING THE COST OF LIVING.
>> IN THE WASA, IT TALKS ABOUT THE LEVY REFORMING, WHICH IS LIKELY GOING TO CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATIVE SIDE.
BUT IT DOES MENTION SPECIFICALLY SPIKING HOUSING VALUES ARE NEGATIVELY IMPACTING MANY DISTRICTS.
>> I ALSO THINK MAYBE WHAT WE CAN DO TOO IS WITH SOME OF THESE ACTION REQUESTS IS, JOHN CAN TAKE IT BACK TO STAFF AND GET RECOMMENDATIONS TOO ON WHAT WOULD BE THE VERY SUCCINCT ASKS THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT WOULD HAVE THE MOST BANG FOR THE BUCK?
>> DO WE WANT TO EXPAND BEYOND THREE, OR DO WE WANT TO JUST STICK AT THREE?
>> WHAT WOULD BE OUR FOURTH ONE?
>> I'D STICK THREE. OUR SIZE, WHERE WE'RE AT, THREE IS AN EASY NUMBER BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU'RE ASKING A FOURTH THAT AGAIN IS IMPACTING EVERYONE SO THIS IS REINFORCING.
YOU COULD EASILY DO TRANSPORTATION AND JUST SAY, LONG TERM, IS TRANSPORTATION GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR US YEARS FROM NOW? I DON'T KNOW.
>> I THINK GIVEN WHAT IT SAYS ON HERE, YEAH.
>> WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT IT. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A FOURTH ONE, MAYBE DON'T GIVE IT A NUMBER, BUT SAY LONG TERM.
>> BUT THEN I ALSO JUST FEEL LIKE, OH, AND THEN THERE'S JUST THIS OTHER ONE.
THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN THAT.
>> I WOULD JUST STICK WITH THREE.
>> I DON'T MIND HAVING MORE ONLY BECAUSE IT'S HELPFUL WHEN WE HAVE A LOT OF THE SAME ONES.
EVEN IF THEY DON'T AFFECT US, IT'S LIKE IF VANCOUVER OR EVER THE BIGGER SCHOOLS SOMETIMES HAVE MORE POWER IN THINGS, I THINK HAVING SOME OF THEIRS ON OURS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT NOT AFFECT US AS WELL, THEY'RE STILL SEEING THE SAME.
>> WE WANT ALL SCHOOLS TO SUCCEED, SO IT MAY HELP OTHER SCHOOLS MORE THAN IT HELPS US, BUT HAVING IT ALL ON THE LIST, THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT.
>> JUST NOT NUMBERING IT, BUT LISTING THEM EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT IN THE BACK. DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? BECAUSE WHEN YOU NUMBER THINGS AND YOU'RE GOING ON TO FOUR AND FIVE AND SIX, BUT IF YOU LEFT IT AS THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US, BUT THEY'RE NOT.
>> WE COULD PUT NUMBER. FOR NUMBERING, I'D BE OKAY IN NUMBER IN THE BACK MSOC AND TRANSPORTATION.
>> I LIKE EITHER TOP THREE OR TOP FIVE. THAT'S JUST ME.
>> WE SOMEONE WANT TO INCLUDE FULLY FUND TRANSITIONAL KINDERGARTEN.
>> I WAS GOING BACK TO THE ESD 1 AND ON THE ESD 1, I FEEL LIKE OF THE SIX ON THE ESD, THERE'S FOUR THAT REALLY HIT US, WHICH WAS SPED.
I COULD SAY SPED MSOC AND THAT STAFFING MODEL, THE PROTOTYPICAL MODEL, NUMBER 6, AND THEN WE CAN ADD IN IF WE ADD IN OUR FUNDING FACTORS LIKE REGIONALIZATION, THEN THAT'S A TOP FIVE.
I DON'T KNOW. I JUST FEEL LIKE TOP FIVE IS EASIER TO SAY INSTEAD OF HERE'S OUR TOP SIX JUST FEELS WEIRD.
>> I'M GOOD WITH FIVE. IF WE WANT TO DO SO YOU'RE SAYING MAYBE TO MSOC AND TRANSITIONAL KINDERGARTEN INSTEAD OF TRANSPORTATION.
>> I WOULD SAY TK AND MSOC, AND MAYBE FROM A FORMATTING STANDPOINT,
[00:45:03]
WE HAVE OUR REAL TOP THREE, WHICH WERE SPED MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE IS ON THE BACK, AND THAT'S ALSO WHERE OUR CONTACT INFORMATION IS OR SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.>> THAT WAY IT ALL FITS BECAUSE VANCOUVER BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MUCH ON THIS HALF, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THE BACK ON THE BOTTOM COULD BE.
>> WHERE OUR CONTACT INFORMATION IS.
>> AM I HEARING TK 4 AND WITH FIVE?
>> I WOULD PUT MSOC IS FOUR AND TK IS FIVE, JUST BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE'S MORE VOICES ON MSOC.
I HEAR THAT IN EVERY DISTRICT, AND SO I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE POWER IN THAT.
>>ON THE CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND ESD IS SUPPORTING 30.
>> NO, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND AND THERE'S A LOT OF DISTRICTS THAT NEED THAT.
>> THEY'RE STRUGGLING TO PASS LEVIES AND BONDS, AND THAT'S WHY.
>> THERE'S A BIT OF TRACTION THERE.
>> WELL, AGAIN, IT'S LIKE GOING BACK TO WANTING ALL SCHOOLS TO SUCCEED.
THERE'S A LOT OF SCHOOLS A LOT OF DISTRICTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO PASS BONDS LIKE WE HAVE.
>> THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF DISTRICTS WHO ARE DOING WAY BETTER IN THIS MODEL, AND IT'S WORKING FOR THEM, AND THEY HAVE NOT FOR YEARS AND YEARS, AND THEN THEY HAVE THIS NEW MODEL, AND IT'S REALLY BENEFITING THEM.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEED TO HAVE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL MODEL.
>> DO WE HAVE ENOUGH TO WORK FROM THEN FOR THIS?
>> I HAVE AN IDEA, JUST WHAT'S THE TIMELINE ON THIS THEN? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE MEETING.
IS THAT WHAT IT IS, THE LAC MEETING?
>> IT MAY NOT BE THE PRETTY FINAL ONE. AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE THE VERSION.
>> AT LEAST WE'LL KNOW WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE.
>> WE'LL BEGIN WITH STAFF WORKING THROUGH THE WORDING AND SO FORTH.
THE PICTURES OF KIDS ON IT SOMEWHERE.
>> WE HAVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND WE'VE GOT THE COLORS ON.
>> I'LL BE REALLY GREAT IF THERE COULD BE ONE TEMPLATE AND THAT LEGISLATORS CAN JUST TALLY. HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT THAT?
>> I THINK WHAT MATTHY JUST SAID THERE, KEEP IT IN THE STYLE AND TEMPLATE OF OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. SAME COLOR.
>> BECAUSE THEN WE CAN REALLY TIE IT UP.
>> WE'VE GOT THE WHEEL, AND WE'VE GOT.
>> I THINK THE FINALIZED PRODUCT AS LONG AS THAT'S READY BY THE 18TH.
>> AGAIN, I THINK MAYBE I'M JUST HOLDING THIS HERE LONGER, BUT I LIKE THE CONTACT INFORMATION SOMEWHERE. SOMEWHERE ON THERE.
I LIKE AT THE END, MAYBE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON THE BACK.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO GO OVER? NO. CONNIE? I HEARD YOU.
>> IS IT IMPORTANT MAYBE IN OUR TALKING POINTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS BUDGET SITUATION THAT WE ARE FACING THIS YEAR AND THE GRAVITY OF IT AND THE IMPACT THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE ON OUR STUDENTS, AND WHAT IS OUR ASK THIS YEAR? IF THEY SAID, WHAT'S ONE THING WE CAN DO TO HELP YOU THIS YEAR? I MEAN, WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT THOSE TALKING POINTS.
LIKE ALL THESE THINGS WOULD HELP US.
BUT I DON'T THINK IF THEY FIX SPECIAL ED FUNDING, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO CUT AS MANY STAFF.
WHAT IS OUR ASK FOR IMMEDIACY TO HELP US THIS YEAR? IS IT OBVIOUSLY IT'S THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL? PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET THAT, BUT THAT WAS THE ONE THING.
IT COULD AVERT THIS CRISIS, CORRECT?
>> I THINK GOING BACK TO A STATE SALARY SCHEDULE WOULD BE THE ANSWER.
THERE ARE CERTAIN LEGISLATORS THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT IT AND I THINK THERE'S SOME INVISIVENESS THERE TOO.
BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A A SILVER BULLET IN A LOT OF WAYS.
>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT, CONNIE OF WE DO HAVE A HUGE BUDGET DEFICIT COMING AND WHAT SPECIFICALLY, THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS.
BUT IF WE DID NUMBER 1, WOULD THAT HELP YOU GUYS?
>> WE'RE FEELING LIKE MSOC IS PROBABLY THE BEST.
>> IT'S THE MOST FLEXIBLE MONEY YOU COULD IS.
>> IT IS. I KNOW IT'S A SMALL PIECE, BUT IT'S MORE OF A QUICK FIX FOR US.
>> WOULD IT IMPACT THE PERCENTAGE WE WOULD HAVE TO CUT AT THE END OF THIS YEAR IF WE GOT AN MSOC FIX?
[00:50:01]
>> BECAUSE WHAT I'M WOULD MAKE WE WANT TO MOVE IT UP.
BECAUSE IF IT'S THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL, WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST WILL HELP US RETAIN THE MOST STAFF AND NOT HAVE TO CUT PROGRAMS.
>> SAY SPECIAL ED OR MSOC BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT GOES INTO THAT.
>> HE'S GOING TO FREE UP LEVY.
>> FREE UP LEVY AND FUND BALANCE.
SPECIAL ED PROBABLY WOULD BE THE BIGGEST CHUNK.
I THINK MSOC GIVES OUR PRINCIPALS AND OUR STAFF THE MOST FLEXIBILITY, BUT SPECIAL ED IS PRETTY BIG AND WE HAVE A GROWING NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED ON IP.
>> THAT SHOULD BE OUR ONE AND TWO?
>> WE HAVE SPECIAL ED AT THE BEGINNING ALREADY.
MAYBE THE SECOND ONE CHANGES A LITTLE BIT.
I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU'RE RIGHT.
WHICH OF THESE WOULD GIVE US FIX US THE MOST?
>> WE CAN SAY THIS IS WHAT WE ADVOCATED FOR AND IF WE GET IT, THEN IT HELPS US THIS YEAR
>> BUT HOW MUCH CAN WE ASK TO SOLVE THIS YEAR.
>> THAT'S WHAT I KEEP GOING BACK TO.
WE'RE NOT GOING THERE AND IS A BIG PART OF OUR PROBLEM.
IF I WERE TO ASK ANYBODY FOR MONEY, THEY'D SAVE A PROBLEM THAT YOU NEED TO CUT BECAUSE THAT'S JUST A FACT OF BUSINESS WHEN YOU'RE ENROLLMENTS DOWN.
YOU SHOULDN'T COME SAVE US IF ENROLLMENTS DOWN.
>>BUT IT'S THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL THAT WE HAVE RUN A SCHOOL WITH THIS MUCH STAFF, AND THEY'VE COME UP WITH A MODEL THAT SAYS, ALL SCHOOLS, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU MONEY FOR THIS MUCH STAFF.
WE USED TO BE ABLE TO RELY, WE COULD FUND THAT BECAUSE WE HAD SO MUCH GROWTH.
NOW WE HAVE TO GET DOWN TO WHERE WE'RE STAFFING FOR THE MONEY WE'RE GETTING.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT IS INADEQUATE TO RUN OUR SCHOOL.
THEY HAVE TO INCREASE THAT NO MATTER WHAT.
>> I WOULD AGREE. I LIKE THE WORDING ON THE SD LEFT HAND COLUMN, WHERE IT JUST SAY, CHRONIC FUNDING CHALLENGES SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO DEEP INTO RESERVES OR THEIR FUNDING SOURCES BECAUSE IF WE TALK ABOUT AGAIN, OUR REGIONALIZATION AND CHALLENGES WE HAVE GETTING ENROLLMENT, IF ENROLLMENT IS DOWN DUE TO NOTHING THAT WE COULD CONTROL.
WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT A BETTER MODEL THAT SHOULD HOPEFULLY STEM THOSE CUTS.
I LIKE THE WORDING THAT GENERALLY.
WE'RE HAVING TO DIG DEEP INTO THIS.
I ENROLLMENT KEEPS GOING DOWN, BUT FUNDING GOES UP, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO CUT.
I MEAN, THERE'S NO CHOICE IN THAT.
>> WELL, THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT REGARDLESS OF OUR I MEAN, BEFORE ENROLLMENT DROP BEFORE COVID, WE KNEW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN LINE WITH THAT.
THEN ENROLLMENT DECREASE HAS JUST PULLED THE TIMELINE OUT.
>>THAT'S WHY I LIKE THE BOTTOM TWO IS A FOUR THAT'S I GUESS ONE HERE BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES SPEAK TO OUR CHALLENGES.
I MEAN, ENROLLMENTS NOTHING THE STATE OR ANYBODY ELSE CAN DO FOR US RIGHT NOW.
>>CONNIE, WHAT WAS THE MAIN FACTOR TO LOOK AT CUTS PRIOR TO COVID?
>> MCCLEARY, THE FUNDING MODEL CHANGED.
>> WE SAW OUR REGIONALIZATION TICKING DOWN.
>> REGIONALIZATION WAS REALLY THAT CUT.
>> ONE OF THE BIG ARGUMENTS FOR MCCLEARY WAS, YOU'RE NOT ADEQUATELY STAFFING THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL WITH THE ASK OF, MAKE THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL REFLECT WHAT IT IS.
WHAT THEY REALLY DID IS CHANGE THE MODEL FOR THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL, SO WHAT WE WERE FUNDED FIT IN THERE.
INSTEAD OF BRINGING THE FUNDING UP TO WHAT IT REALLY TAKES TO RUN THE SCHOOL, WE CHANGED THE MODEL TO MAP IT INCREASED FUNDING IN SOME AREAS AND DID IN OTHER, BUT IT DOESN'T REFLECT WHAT IT COST THE STAFFING NEEDED TO RUN A SCHOOL TODAY.
NOBODY'S GETTING ENOUGH MONEY TO RUN THE SCHOOL PROGRAMS I THINK THAT ARE NEEDED TODAY TO EDUCATE KIDS.
IF WE DID NOTHING AND WE DIDN'T HAVE COVID, WE WOULD STILL BE CUTTING.
WE MAY HAVE HAD TO CUT SOONER WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE COVID.
>> THERE WAS A PLAN IN PLACE TO USE OUR FUND BALANCE TO GRADUALLY DECREASED TO MAKE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET AND TO MAP WHAT WE WERE GETTING FROM THE STATE, WHICH IS THE PROTOTYPICAL SCHOOL MODEL, WHICH THE COVID DOESN'T EVEN COVER.
>> ONE OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS TOO WAS THAT WE COULD WE COULD CONTROL OUR EXPENSES BOTH OF OUR EXPENSES, AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN TRYING WE'RE SITTING IN BUDGET MEETINGS WHERE WE'RE LIKE, WE CAN'T GROW OUR EXPENSES MORE THAN 1% IN TWO YEARS, AND THEN COVID HAPPENS AND THEN WE NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS AND WE HAVE STRIKES, AND LOTS OF THINGS OUTSIDE OF THAT BOX HAPPEN AND INFLATION.
JUST GOING BACK TO SOMETHING FROM MONDAY NIGHT BECAUSE WE WERE ASKING ABOUT SPECIAL ED.
[00:55:01]
SPECIAL EDUCATION, WE JUST GOING BACK TO YOUR REPORT, ACCORDING TO OUR LEVY AND FUND BALANCE UTILIZATION, IT'S ABOUT $3 MILLION OUT OF THAT.IF SPECIAL ED WAS FULLY FUNDED, THEN THAT WOULD HELP US TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT $3 MILLION.
>> WE NEED TO CUT ABOUT 10 MILLION.
ITS 10% ABOUT 10 MILLION, ROUGHLY?
>> YEAH. IT DOESN'T GET THERE, BUT IT WOULD HELP.
>> TEN PERCENT IS PROBABLY CLOSER TO 12 MILLION.
BUT STILL THREE MILLION WOULD BE GREAT.
>> I THINK IT HELPS TO BE ABLE TO CONCEPTUALIZE IT LIKE THAT.
IF WE COULD GET THIS FUNDING FOR THIS, WE COULD SAVE THIS PERCENTAGE.
>> I THINK COREY'S POINT, THAT UTILIZATION CHART IS REALLY.
>> JUST WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
>> BETWEEN $25 MILLION TO JOHN.
>> GO BACK TO JOHN'S SUPERINTENDENT REPORT FROM MONDAY AND JUST LIKE MEMORIZE SLIDE 32, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
BECAUSE REALLY THAT ANYTHING THAT WE GET THAT FREE THAT FREES UP SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING FUNDED THROUGH LEVY MEANS THAT WE CAN USE LEVY TO FUND SOMETHING ELSE, $8 MILLION OF LEVY AND FUND BALANCE IN CERTIFICATED POSITIONS, 3.3 MILLION IN SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACTS, 2.6 MILLION CLASSIFIED POSITIONS.
>> IMAGINE HAVING THIS PERFECT STORM AND NOT PASSING A LEVY.
>> THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THESE DISTRICTS ARE.
>> IRONICALLY, POST MCLARY, THESE ARE NOW ENRICHMENT LEVIES.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE EVERYTHING THAT IS BEYOND HIS BASIC.
>> DEFINITELY HAVE OUR HOMEWORK I APPRECIATE IT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE GROUP? IT IS 6: 27, AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.