[Call to Order: Board President]
[00:00:02]
AI CAME IN TO. INTERRUPTED. THERE'S A RECORDING. I'LL START OVER. ALL RIGHT. I CALL TO ORDER THIS BOARD. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY ON
[Quorum Roll Call]
NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025 AT 4:03 P.M. THIS SPECIAL MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A VIRTUAL FASHION. MISS ROLLO, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. MRS. PERRY. I BELIEVE MRS. PERRY IS ABSENT.MR. SEWELL. I AM HERE. DOCTOR MUELLER PRESENT. MR. MCVICKER. PRESENT. MR. KORN, PRESENT.
MRS. HAHN, PRESENT, MISS BRUCE. MISS BRUCE, IF YOU'RE. I BELIEVE SHE'S GOING TO BE ABSENT. OKAY. MRS. ALVAREZ, PRESENT VICE PRESIDENT PAGE HERE. PRESENT. BOYNTON HERE.
SUPERINTENDENT BOYLSTON HERE. MR. SZOKA, I'M HERE. THIS COMPLETES THE ROLL CALL. THANK YOU, MADAM VICE PRESIDENT, PLEASE READ THIS AFTERNOON'S PROCESS. THE FOLLOWING PROCESS WILL BE USED THIS AFTERNOON. BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF WILL MUTE THEIR DEVICE UNTIL CALLED UPON. DOCTOR BOYNTON WILL CALL ON EACH BOARD MEMBER FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF MEMBERS SHOULD RESTATE THEIR NAME BEFORE SPEAKING. WHEN A ROLL
[Adoption of Agenda]
CALL IS TAKEN FOR A MOTION, I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE REPLY WITH A YES OR A NO. THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS, YOU HAVE THE AGENDA BEFORE YOU DO. I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA. THIS IS MELISSA AND I MOVE TO ADOPT THE AGENDA. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? THIS IS LAUREN. I SECOND, THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY YES. YES YES YES YES. ANY OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY NO. ANY[A. Discussion and Decision on Appeal of State Board Decision, Dr. Aaron Poynton, Board President]
ABSTENTIONS. THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES. WE HAVE A SINGLE ITEM FOR THE SPECIAL SESSION ITEM A DISCUSSION, SORRY. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ON APPEAL OF THE STATE BOARD DECISION. AT THIS POINT, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. AND. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. SO I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE NEED A WHOLE LOT OF HISTORY HERE. I THINK ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE VERY AWARE OF HOW WE GOT HERE. THE BOARD'S THE STATE BOARD'S DECISION WAS CIRCULATED LATE LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE, AND BOARD MEMBERS HAVE HAD THE TIME TO REVIEW THAT AND DISCUSS IT, DISCUSS IT AMONG AMONG YOURSELVES, AND THINK ABOUT WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE SPECIAL SESSION WAS CALLED BECAUSE A FEW OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD INDICATED TO ME THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN HAVING A DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD APPEAL THE STATE BOARD'S DECISION, WHICH WOULD THEN ELEVATE IT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WE WILL JUST OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. YEAH, YEAH. PRESIDENT POINT I YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT THE STATE BOARD DID NOT CONTACT US PRIOR TO THE APPEAL PROCESS THAT THEY OVERTURNED, IN WHICH THEY OVERTURNED OUR DECISION. SURE. I CAN I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT BRIEFLY, AND THEN GREG CAN GIVE MORE DETAILS IF NEEDED. BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A PAPER APPEAL, THE SAME WAY THAT THE APPEALS COME TO THE LOCAL BOARD. WE DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO TO SHARE OUR ARGUMENT, ESSENTIALLY, AND RATIONALE TO THE STATE, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED. BUT BEYOND THAT PAPER APPEAL, THERE WAS THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY NO OTHER DIALOG. SO THAT SAME WAY THE APPEALS COME TO US IS HOW IT WENT TO THE STATE BOARD. AND, GREG, IF THERE'S ANYTHING, ANY CONTEXT THAT YOU WANT TO ADD, PLEASE CHIME IN. ERIN, YOU'RE BREAKING UP ON MY PHONE. BUT THE THERE[00:05:10]
WAS A RECORD THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE BOARD, ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND REBUTTALS.AND THEN THE DECISION WAS ULTIMATELY MADE BY THE STATE BOARD LAST WEEK. AND SO WE HAVE THAT. HAS THAT BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS? THE ESTATES BOARD, THE STATE BOARD DECISION? NO, THE THE THE ACTIONS THAT OUR BOARD TOOK. YES, IT WAS, BUT IT'S IT'S BEEN A WHILE. IT'S BEEN WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED. I MEAN THIS GOES BACK PROBABLY A COUPLE MONTHS, BUT AT THE TIME IT WAS ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE BRIEFS. IS THAT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? I MEAN, I MEAN, I SEE THE. SEE THE OPINION I'M SAYING, WERE THE BRIEFS SUBMITTED OR THE BRIEFS CIRCULATED? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH. I MEAN, THIS IS GOING BACK A COUPLE YEARS, BUT YEAH, I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM. AARON IS IS, YOU KNOW, AND I, I WAS NOT EVEN AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR BOARD MADE ANY RESPONSE TO THIS APPEAL TO THE STATE. SO AND YOU KNOW AND I WAS, YOU KNOW, AT A COUNTRY AND, YOU KNOW, DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW, THE DEATH OF, OF TWO LOVED ONES. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I MISSED SOMETHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I IF, IF SOMETHING WAS SENT OUT, I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THAT. AND IF YOU HAVE WHEN IT WAS SENT AND WHO IT WAS SENT FROM, I COULD KIND OF PULL IT UP AND LOOK AT IT QUICKLY. SO. WELL, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT IT QUICKLY. I MEAN, IT'S A LEGAL BRIEF, BUT I GUESS. WHAT WERE YOU ON THE INITIAL APPEAL? YOU SIT ON THE INITIAL APPEAL. OKAY. THE APPEAL TO THE LOCAL BOARD. YES, I DID SIT ON THE THE APPEAL TO THE LOCAL BOARD. YEAH. SO SO I MEAN, ALL I CAN SAY IS I'M GOING OFF MEMORY HERE, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMUNICATED THAT THERE WAS AN APPEAL THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE STATE AND, YOU KNOW, AND WE SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, OUR DECISION IN THE RATIONALE, WHICH WAS ALSO IN THE DECISION LETTER THAT WENT TO THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME. AND I DO CIRCULATE, CIRCULATE THOSE TO THE BOARD. SO I'M NOT IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION, MAYBE WE CAN ANSWER IT. BUT AT THIS POINT, I GUESS THE THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WERE NOT ACCURATE. AND I HAD NOT SEEN THE THE APPEAL THAT THEY SUBMITTED UNTIL AFTER THE DECISION OF THE STATE. SO THERE WERE SOME INACCURACIES MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PROCESS OF APPEALING OUR DECISION. YOU YOU MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT MADE INACCURATE STATEMENTS WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, US. IN THEIR APPEAL TO THE STATE, THEY MADE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT WITH APPELLANT. SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE APPELLANTS TO THE STATE. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE PARTY WHO BROUGHT THE YEAH, I MEAN, THE PARTIES WHO BROUGHT THE APPEAL TO THE STATE WERE NOT PARTIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPEAL. SO I GOT THAT ONE OF THEM. NO. SO OKAY. YEAH. SO THE THE, THE AND WHAT I RECEIVED AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING I MISSED, I DO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH WITH A LOT LATELY. AND SO THE WHAT I GOT FROM. YOU KNOW, FROM THE STATE WAS THE, THE WE WILL TOGETHER APPEAL TO THE STATE THE THE THE I, THE OPINION. SO THAT'S WHAT I'VE REVIEWED IN PREPARATION FOR THIS. AS I REVIEWED THE OPINION. AND IN THAT OPINION THERE WERE SOME INACCURACIES IN THE STATE'S OPINION. OKAY. WELL, SO SO IF YOU BELIEVE THERE WERE INACCURACIES IN THE STATE'S OPINION, THEN THAT'S I WOULD SAY THAT'S A REASON FOR YOU TO WANT TO APPEAL IT. THEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. I MEAN, EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN BOTH THE APPELLANT'S ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE STATE AND THE STATE'S RESPONSE BACK WAS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL BRIEFING
[00:10:04]
THAT WAS SENT OUT TO THE BOARD LAST WEEK. SO I, YOU KNOW, UNLESS ANYONE HAS ANOTHER OPINION, I BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED LAST WEEK IS SUFFICIENT FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE FORWARD. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HOLDING ANOTHER HEARING. AND AND THERE'S ALSO A TIMELINESS ASPECT OF THIS. YEAH. I MEAN, IF, DIANE, IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, ASK. AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT WERE INACCURATE, THEN THAT'S MAYBE EVEN MORE OF A REASON TO APPEAL. BUT ANYWAY, I DON'T WANT TO SWAY THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT GREG, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS SO FAR ON WHAT DIANE'S QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ARE? WELL, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO TO SEEK RELIEF. ONE IS TO GO BACK TO THE STATE BOARD AND ASK FOR A RECONSIDERATION. AND THAT THAT PROCESS INVOLVES FILING AN APPROPRIATE MOTION WITH THEM, POINTING OUT THE AREAS IN WHICH THERE WERE MATERIAL DISCREPANCIES AS TO FACTS, AND SEE WHETHER, IN FACT, IF THEY WISH TO, TO OPEN THE RECORD AND PROCEED AGAIN. THE SECOND WAY ALSO, WHICH NEEDS TO BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION, IS TO TAKE AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HARFORD COUNTY AND THEN RUNNING IT THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS THERE, LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES DECISION IN THE CASE. SO, GREG, IF WE COULD TAKE THE FIRST OPTION, DO WE WE DON'T LOSE ANY RIGHTS TO FURTHER CIRCUIT COURT APPEAL. IF THE STATE COMES BACK ON THE FIRST OPTION. NOT IN OUR FAVOR, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. OKAY. CAN WE DO BOTH OPTIONS? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE IN A SEQUENTIAL. IF YOU WENT THAT WAY, IT WOULD BE SEQUENTIAL.
YOU WOULD ASK THEM TO RECONSIDER IF THEY EITHER DENIED THE REQUEST OR ISSUED ANOTHER DECISION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT. THAT WAS UNFAVORABLE. THEN THERE'S FURTHER APPEAL TO THE THROUGH THE CIRCUIT COURT ON THE REVIEW. THAT HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS. DOES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE NEXT, LIKE IF WE DO THE FIRST ONE, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, AND THEY COME BACK AND DENY OUR APPEAL, THEN DOES THAT HAVE TO BE LIKE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS? OR WHAT IF IT'S AFTER THE 30 DAY TIME FRAME FROM THE ORIGINAL DECISION? DOES IT STILL? I WOULD THINK THE CLOCK STARTS OVER. DOES THE CLOCK START OVER? OKAY. OH 30 DAYS. THE TIME CLOCK WOULD RESET. AND SO FROM THE THE FINAL DECISION OF THE STATE BOARD, IN THAT CASE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. YES. OKAY. SO YOU DON'T LOSE ANY RIGHTS FOR DOWNLINE APPEALS THEN. SO BUT I GUESS THE THE QUESTION IS SO ON ON THE RECONSIDERATION, GREG, WHAT ARE SORT OF THE RULES OR LAWS OR BOUNDARIES ON THAT? IS IT IS IT SOMETHING MATERIAL THAT WE BELIEVE MAY HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED? BECAUSE I IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN MAYBE WHAT DIANE WAS SAYING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE'S I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. THAT WAS INACCURATE. BUT IF IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO EFFECTIVELY ESSENTIALLY CORRECT THE RECORD ON ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, WHICH MAY THEN SWAY THE OUTCOME, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST CHOICE THEN, RIGHT? RIGHT. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IF THERE MATERIAL FACTS THAT ARE INCORRECT THAT THE STATE BOARD COULD EITHER THEN CORRECT OR REAFFIRM ITS EARLIER DECISION IN IN ESSENCE, YOU GET FINALITY, AND THAT FINALITY WOULD THEN ALLOW YOU TO TAKE A, AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, BUT AT LEAST YOU WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO ADJUST THEIR DECISION BASED UPON DISCREPANCIES IN THE FACTUAL PART OF THE RECORD. OKAY. I MEAN, THEIR THEIR DECISION. GREG, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SUMMARIZE IT OR IF YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I THINK THEIR OF THEIR DECISION, GO RIGHT AHEAD. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THEIR DECISION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO TO. TO TO REFUTE THAT THE RECONSIDERATION BOARD DID NOT DO A PROPER REVIEW OF THE, OF THE BOOK. SO THEY FELT AS THOUGH THE THE REVIEW AND THE
[00:15:02]
RECONSIDERATION PROCESS WAS DONE. SUFFICIENTLY, AND WE DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THAT WOULD MAKE A CLAIM THAT THEY DID NOT DO A PROPER REVIEW. THAT WOULD BE THE POSITION THAT THEY TOOK. YES. YEAH. SO THEY WEREN'T BASING IT ON THE FREEDOM, THE READ ACT OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER CLAIMS THAT WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT WHO BROUGHT THE BROUGHT THE POSITION TO THE TO THE STATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. RIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK THEY DID CITE FREEDOM TO READ IN THEIR RESPONSE. BUT YEAH, GO BACK AS A AS A REFERENCE POINT. YEAH.AND JUST SO WE ARE AWARE. GOOD. YEAH. GO AHEAD. NO. GO AHEAD. FINISH AARON I'M SORRY. NO I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY JUST IN JUST SO THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE JEFF. SO THE BURDEN OF PROOF ALSO FALLS ON THE APPELLANT, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, SO THIS BOARD NEEDS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, AS A, AS A BOARD, WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE GOT IT RIGHT OR WHETHER THEY GOT IT WRONG. AND IF WE THINK THAT THEY GOT IT WRONG, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS, EITHER RECONSIDERATION OR APPEAL. SO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. HANDS RAISED. OH SORRY I KNOW. GO AHEAD. YOU CAN GO FIRST AND THEN I'LL GO WHEN YOU'RE DONE. WHENEVER. NO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. BEFORE WE GO DIRECTLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I, I, I HATE TO INTERRUPT, BUT I'VE HAD MY HAND UP FOR A LONG TIME, SO I REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S MY TURN TO SPEAK. YEAH. HEY, GUYS. JUST, JUST JUST SO, YOU KNOW, I'M ON A PHONE SO I CAN'T SEE HANDS ARE UP, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. SO YOU CAN JUST CHIME IN. SORRY ABOUT THAT, DOCTOR MUELLER. YEAH I APOLOGIZE THAT I INTERRUPTED, BUT MY QUESTION IS ON EITHER OF THESE OPTIONS.
I MEAN, WE'RE PAYING GREG. OBVIOUSLY HE DESERVES TO GET PAID, BUT WHAT TYPE OF MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? ARE WE TALKING ONE TEACHER, TWO TEACHERS, THREE TEACHERS? IF WE GO TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, HOW MANY POOR TEACHERS? HOW MUCH ARE WE PAYING TO DO THIS FOR A DECISION THAT. THAT THE STATE BOARD MADE SURE I COULD PROBABLY ESTIMATE. AND THEN GREG CAN PROBABLY CHIME IN WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. BUT IF IT'S A IF IT'S RECONSIDERATION AND WE HAVE THE OPTION TO CLARIFY THE RECORD, YOU'RE PROBABLY ONLY TALKING ABOUT A FEW BILLABLE LEGAL HOURS. IF IT GOES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, IT WILL BE PROBABLY MORE THAN THAT. BUT WHEN IT GOES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, IT'S NOT LIKE A COURT CASE, PER SE. I MEAN, WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT SOMETHING, BUT IT'LL ALL BE ESSENTIALLY A PAPER REVIEW. IS THAT RIGHT, GREG? WELL, THAT WELL, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THIS WE WOULD FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW, WHICH IS JUST A. INITIAL DOCUMENT THAT GETS FILED. AND THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE OTHER PARTIES WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND.
THE PROCESS WOULD BE THAT MEMORANDUM AGAIN WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, AND THEN THE COURT WOULD WOULD HOLD A HEARING. AND SO IT'S NOT THE SAME AS IF YOU WERE IN A FULL BLOWN LITIGATION WITH DEPOSITIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I GUESS WHERE I'M COMING FROM IS THE STATE BOARD SAID THAT WE HAD FOLLOWED OUR PROCEDURE, AND WE ARE SAYING WE DID NOT. IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE OVERTURNED. WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE. THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR OVERTURNING IT. CORRECT? OKAY.
A DECISION THAT A DECISION THAT AT THE AT THE BOARD LEVEL, THE BOARD BOARD'S OPINION OF THE BOOK FLAMER, WAS THAT A MARKED VARIANCE WITH THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE BOARD ITSELF. BUT THEN YOU'RE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE REALLY FIGHTING WITH A BOARD THAT'S CREATED BY YOU AND HAS RENDERED A DECISION IN THIS CASE, AND THEN A RECONSIDERATION AS WELL. SO WE WE SET UP THE PROCESS, THE PROCEDURE. THEY FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE. AND THEN WE'RE SAYING THEY DIDN'T FILE THE PROCEDURE. AND SO THE BOOK SHOULD BE BANNED. AND THE STATE IS SAYING THEY DID FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE IS THAT THAT IS SORT OF A ESSENTIALLY YES. BUT ONE CLARIFICATION. YEAH. WHEN YOU SAY WE OBVIOUSLY JUST FOR OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE LISTENING AND
[00:20:05]
THE BOARD DIDN'T CREATE THE PROCEDURE, THE ADMINISTRATION DID, BUT YES. OH, NO. WELL, NO.I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE THERE WAS A GROUP FROM THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND LAUREN PAGE, PRIOR TO HER TIME BEING ON THE BOARD, WAS INVOLVED IN THAT. I THOUGHT THAT THAT ALL AND IT WAS ALL APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND IT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC. IT HAD GONE OUT FOR 30 DAYS OF PUBLIC COMMENT, AND IT HAD BEEN APPROVED THAT WAY, TOO. SO WHAT AM I MISSING? YEAH. IT'S EVERYTHING. DOCTOR BULSON. DOCTOR BULSON SET UP THIS WORK GROUP. I DID NOT ATTEND A MEETING BEFORE I WAS ON THE BOARD. SO THIS WORK GROUP WAS MADE UP OF STAKEHOLDERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. AT DOCTOR BOLTON'S REQUEST. YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY THAT. HOLD ON. SO LET ME LET ME LET ME CHIME IN HERE JUST TO. SO POLICIES ARE BOARD ACTIONS. PROCEDURES ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS. AND YES, THERE WAS A LARGE NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC, THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THE PROCEDURE, INCLUDING LAUREN, WHO WAS A REPRESENTATIVE OF OF THE BOARD AND AT ONE POINT OF THE PUBLIC, BUT A PROCEDURE. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE WE'RE A DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITIES AS WELL. WHEN WE SAY WE CREATED THE PROCEDURE, WE WE AS IN THE BOARD DIDN'T. THE ADMINISTRATION DID WITH INPUT FROM THE BOARD, BUT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, NOT A BOARD ACTION. THE ONLY BOARD ACTION IN ALL OF THIS WAS THE INITIAL APPEAL AND THE DECISION TO ESSENTIALLY REMOVE THE BOOK, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD FELT THAT THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE. SO WE'RE SAYING THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE. IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION WHETHER THEY FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE OR NOT. IS IS IS WHAT IS UP IS IRRELEVANT. EVERY EVERYONE HAS GOT THEIR OWN. IT IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE FOLLOWED. OH IT'S IT IS RELEVANT AND EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN PERSONAL TAKE WHETHER THE PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED OR NOT. THAT IS WHAT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND IS THE BASIS OF PUSHING THIS FORWARD TO THE NEXT LEVEL. WHATEVER. OKAY, SO SO I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT CAROL, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE. I AND AND I, I THINK THAT IS WHY THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT REVIEWING THE PROCEDURE SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE PROCEDURE SAYS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF. DIVISION ON WHAT WE THINK THAT IT SAYS. IT MAY NOT BE 100% CLEAR. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE RECEIVED SOME EMAILS FROM FROM PRESIDENT PUTIN AND LAUREN THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PROCEDURE JUST OR SOMEBODY LOOKING AT THE PROCEDURE. I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THAT. BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S MORE CLARITY, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALL WHATEVER'S COME OUT OF THIS, WE'VE WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER CLARITY. YEAH. AND TO THAT POINT, DIANE, BASED ON COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND BOARD FEEDBACK AND A FEW OTHER THINGS, THE ADMINISTRATION DID REVISE THE PROCEDURE, INCLUDING HAVING MORE OPTIONS FOR OPTING OUT, MORE TRANSPARENCY, AND MAKING IT EASIER FOR PARENTS TO BE ABLE TO OPT OUT. THAT PROCEDURE, I THINK, WAS JUST POSTED A DAY OR TWO AGO. DOCTOR PAULSON COULD PROBABLY VERIFY THAT, BUT THAT HAD BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN IN THE WORKS, SORT OF REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS CASE UNFOLDED. BUT THE AGAIN, I WANT TO KEEP THIS FOCUSED ON THE DECISION AT HAND, WHICH IS WHY WE CALLED THIS SPECIAL SESSION. DOES THE BOARD FEEL THAT THE STATE MADE THE RIGHT OPINION OR THE WRONG OPINION OR DECISION? PROBABLY VERSUS OPINION. AND IS THERE AN APPETITE TO APPEAL THIS TO THE HIGHER LEVEL? SO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE, I BELIEVE, SAID THAT HE WOULD PAY FOR THE APPEAL PROCESS IF WE DID APPEAL THIS OKAY. PUBLICLY WHEN WHEN HE SPOKE. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD APPEAL THE DECISION, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT IT WAS AN OVERSTEP OF THE STATE BOARD TO OVERRIDE OUR DECISION. SO I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPEAL IF THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. THE DECISION OF THE STATE BOARD. OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. I'LL WAIT FOR A SECOND, BUT I STILL LIKE THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM SOME BOARD MEMBERS, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE BEFORE SOMEONE THROWS OUT A SECOND, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL BOARD MEMBERS TO OPINE. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY COMMENT,
[00:25:05]
YOU KNOW, TODAY IS LESS OF A KIND OF IT'S MORE GENERAL, I WANT TO SAY JUST ABOUT THE BOOK AND ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS. I WANTED TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL VOTE TO REMOVE THE BOOK BECAUSE I HADN'T BEEN SWORN IN YET. AND THEN DUE TO MY RESTRICTED VOTING STATUS, I'M PROHIBITED FROM CASTING A VOTE TONIGHT. MY VOTE TONIGHT WILL ONLY BE PREFERENTIAL. SO THE BOOK FLAMER, YOU KNOW, FUNDAMENTALLY IT'S A STORY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A YOUNG MAN NAVIGATING A COMPLEX DISCOVERY OF HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION. RIGHT. SO, BUT ON A ON A BROADER SCALE, IT'S A STORY ABOUT THE DEVASTATING IMPACT OF BULLYING AND HARASSMENT SO SEVERE THAT IT DROVE THE MAIN CHARACTER INTO, YOU KNOW, INTO POSSIBLY ATTEMPTING SUICIDE. AND THE TRUE MESSAGE OF THIS BOOK IS, IS ONE OF HOPE AND RESILIENCE. AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE LOSING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOSING SIGHT OF THAT, THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROTAGONIST IN THE STORY CHOOSES LIFE. AND TO FIND A BETTER PATH FORWARD INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY FOLLOWING THROUGH AND COMMITTING SUICIDE. AND I CAN'T I CAN'T THINK OF A A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T THAT WOULDN'T WANT THAT KIND OF MESSAGE IN OUR LIBRARIES. IT IS NOT IN THE CURRICULUM. NOBODY'S FORCED TO READ IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO READ IT, IT'S IN THE LIBRARY. AND IF YOU IF YOUR PARENTS DON'T WANT YOU TO READ IT, THEN THEY CAN SIMPLY ASK THE SCHOOL SYSTEM NOT TO ALLOW YOU TO CHECK IT OUT. SUICIDE ISN'T THE SOLUTION. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. AND YOU KNOW, NO MATTER HOW OVERWHELMING ANY SITUATION IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS BETTER WAYS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS STORY PREACHES. YOU KNOW, I SAY TO EVERYBODY WHO ASKED ME ABOUT IT THAT I KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE GRAPPLING WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THESE CHALLENGES. AND, AND I BELIEVE DEEPLY THAT THE BOOK, YOU KNOW, MIRRORS, YOU KNOW, IT PROVIDES A MIRROR AND A MESSAGE OF SURVIVAL THAT COULD BE A GENUINE SOURCE FOR HELP FOR SOME PEOPLE. AND I ALSO REALLY WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. I'VE READ THE BOOK. I'VE ALSO I'VE DURING MY SCHOOL VISITS, I'VE SPOKEN TO LIBRARIANS AND MEDIA SPECIALISTS AT EVERY SCHOOL THAT I'VE BEEN TO, AND I'VE BEEN TO OVER TEN AT THIS POINT. AND I'LL CONTINUE. I'M CONTINUING THAT. BUT THE BOOK IS NOT PORNOGRAPHY. IT'S NOT. IT CONTAINS IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY, YOU KNOW, REALLY ANY EXPLICIT IMAGES. NO GENITALIA? NO. NOTHING IS SHOWN IN THE BOOK. AND IT'S ALSO NOT A GUIDE TO SUBMIT TO COMMIT SUICIDE OR HOW TO HARM YOURSELF. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THAT THE DECISION, THE DECISION WE'RE ABOUT TO DECIDE ON, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER SECONDS IT IS TO CONTINUE AN EXHAUSTIVE FIGHT. WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS, AND IT'S IT'S EXHAUSTING. IT'S EXHAUSTING FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR PARENTS, FOR STUDENTS AND FOR US. YOU KNOW, I WHENEVER I TELL PEOPLE I'M ON THE BOARD, ESPECIALLY NOW, YOU KNOW, OR THEY ASK, YOU KNOW, OH, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE YOU'RE THE KID ON THE BOARD AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, I'M LIKE, YEAH. AND THEY'RE ALWAYS LIKE LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALWAYS LIKE, WOW. YOU KNOW THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A MESS RIGHT NOW. AND I'M LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE FIGHTING OVER SOMETHING THAT REALLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE FOUGHT ABOUT. YOU KNOW, THEY THINK THAT WE'RE A DISASTER. IS THAT REALLY THAT WHAT THE IMAGE WE WANT FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS TO HAVE OF US? AND I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF NOISE AND IT'S PULLING OUR FOCUS AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON. AND THEN JUST ONE MORE COMMENT. I BELIEVE THAT THE THAT THIS BOOK IS APPROPRIATE FOR HIGH SCHOOLS.I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR MIDDLE SCHOOLS, BUT I DO BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR HIGH SCHOOLS BECAUSE TRUST ME, WALKING THROUGH THE HIGH SCHOOL, WALKING THROUGH THE HALLS OF A HIGH SCHOOL EVERY DAY, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HEAR LANGUAGE THAT MIGHT NOT BE SO FRIENDLY EVERY DAY AND THAT AND THERE'S NO THERE'S NO FIXING THAT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, STUDENTS ARE STUDENTS. BUT WE ALSO CAN'T BE NAIVE TO THAT. AND, AND THEN THINK THAT IT'S NOT OKAY TO BE IN A BOOK THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY HELP SOMEBODY. SO I JUST THINK THAT WE, WE, WE DON'T NEED TO BE VOTING ON I THINK A LOT OF MEMBERS ARE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY PERSONALLY DISLIKE THE BOOK'S SUBJECT MATTER FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE VOTING ON. IT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS STAFF FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURE. AND FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, IT SOUNDS LIKE NOT EVERYBODY EVEN REALLY KNOWS WHAT THAT PROPER PROCEDURE WAS.
OR DID THEY KNOW AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE VOTING AND THAT THEY VOTED ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY LIKED THE BOOK OR NOT? SO I THINK THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND THINK, DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO EXHAUST OURSELVES FIGHTING OVER THIS AND GET OUR LAWYERS INVOLVED AND GET THE CIRCUIT COURTS INVOLVED? AND OR DO WE JUST WANT TO LET THIS GO AND NOT SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE CAN JUST APPEAL AND APPEAL AND APPEAL AND APPEAL AND THAT ANYBODY CAN COME AND BRING HUNDREDS OF BOOKS TO US, AND WE JUST ARE COMPLETELY SWAMPED FOR THIS FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU TREY. THAT'S A LOT OF GOOD INSIGHT AND AND DEPTH SINCE YOU DID MENTION IT AND YOU WEREN'T ON THE INITIAL APPEAL, I WILL SAY
[00:30:04]
THAT THE THE INITIAL APPEAL CONVERSATION WAS NOT REALLY ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF OR THE CONTENT AS MUCH AS IT WAS. DID THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE CONSIDER AGE APPROPRIATENESS, INCLUDING PROFANITY AND NON-SEXUAL NUDITY, ETC. WHICH ARE WHICH ARE CLEAR CRITERIA UNDER 0.5? WHEN DETERMINING THAT THIS BOOK WAS SUITABLE FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS, WHICH WHICH WAS REALLY I MEAN, THERE WERE LOTS OF DIFFERENT ANGLES TO THIS CONVERSATION, THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK, THE STORY OF THE BOOK, OR WHATEVER WAS NOT REALLY IT IT WAS MORE AND I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S ALL GOOD INSIGHT AND GOOD CONTEXT, BUT IT REALLY BOILED DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE GOT IT RIGHT WHEN IT CAME TO THE AGE APPROPRIATENESS FACTOR AND PERVASIVE VULGARITY BEING ACCESSIBLE TO STUDENTS WHO WERE BELOW THE RECOMMENDED GRADE LEVEL, EVEN ACCORDING TO ITS OWN AUTHOR. SO BUT REALLY GOOD INSIGHT. WE APPRECIATE THAT. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU WILL BE CASTING A PREFERENTIAL VOTE TODAY, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. SO THANK YOU. MAYBE I CAN'T SEE WHO ELSE HAS THEIR HAND UP. SO WADE HAS HIS HAND UP. OH OKAY. OKAY. LET'S LET'S DO WADE AND THEN MARK AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT BACK UP. WADE. YES. SO GREAT. GREAT DISCUSSION. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE TREY'S COMMENTS TO TRY TO RECENTER THIS CONVERSATION. YOU KNOW, I IF THIS BOARD WAS TO CHOOSE TO CONTINUE DOWN THIS PATH. YOU KNOW, REMOVING THE BOOK, EVEN THOUGH FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.VIRTUAL, I BELIEVE ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. YOU KNOW, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHANGED PROCEDURES. I BELIEVE THE BOOK WAS ONLY IN FOUR LIBRARIES TO BEGIN WITH. AND THAT IT WAS REMOVED FROM MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARIES IF IT EVER WAS IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARIES. IT'S ONLY IN HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES WHERE IT WAS WHERE THE PUBLISHERS HAD RECOMMENDED IT TO BE. AND THAT'S WHERE OUR LIBRARIANS CHOSE IT TO BE. AND NOW WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE STATE BOARD. I BELIEVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN IS A VERY HIGH. AND GREG CAN SPEAK TO THIS TO POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, APPEAL THIS TO THE BOARD OR EVEN HIGHER THAT, YOU KNOW, TO FOR ANYTHING TO GO. YOU KNOW, IF THIS BOARD WAS TO CHOOSE TO APPEAL THIS TO A, TO A HIGHER POWER. THAT, YOU KNOW, TO TO POSSIBLY RULE IN OUR FAVOR, THE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN IS ALL ON US, AND IT IS EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH. IT'S EXCEEDINGLY RARE THAT THIS STATE BOARD IS EVER OVERTURNED. GREG, COULD YOU COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT FOR A MINUTE? SURE. I THINK YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU TAKE A APPEAL IN THIS CONTEXT AND IT GOES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE THE CIRCUIT COURT IS ACTING ON THE RECORD, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY NEW, NEW EVIDENCE THAT WILL COME IN TO THE HEARING. WHAT THEY'LL DO IS TAKE THE RECORD THAT WAS CREATED DOWN BELOW, AND IT WILL IT WILL EVALUATE THE. DECISION WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE DEFERENCE GIVEN TO THE STATE BOARD FOR ITS DECISION, BECAUSE THE BURDEN WILL BE ON, YOU KNOW, HARFORD COUNTY TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE STATE BOARD WAS, YOU KNOW, WAS ARBITRARY OR WAS.
UNREASONABLE, GIVEN THE STATE OF THE RECORD IN THE CASE. AND SO IN ALL THESE CASES, THE THE AS YOU POINTED OUT, WADE, THE THE THE BURDEN IS SIGNIFICANT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE HARFORD COUNTY WOULD HAVE WITH REGARD TO THIS AND THE COURT WOULD BE LOOKING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REVIEW IS TO GIVE A LEVEL OF DEFERENCE TO THE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION. AND SO THEY WERE. THEY DECISION OF AN AGENCY DOES NOT RECEIVE A DE NOVO REVIEW,
[00:35:09]
BUT GETS THE THE CONCEPT OF SPECIAL DEFERENCE AND THE WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE OF THE STATE BOARD WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND OR WHETHER IT WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST, IS THAT EVIDENCE THAT A REASONABLE MIND MIGHT FIND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION. AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THE IF WE WERE TO PREVAIL, THE THE DECISION FOR THE MOST PART, YOU KNOW, MAY BE REMANDED TO THE STATE BOARD FOR THEM TO RECONSIDER IT IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISION.THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY IT COULD GO. THE SECOND WAY WOULD BE THE CIRCUIT COURT WOULD JUST EITHER UPHOLD OR OVERTURN THE DECISION AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. THE THE PROBLEM IS THE FACT THAT THE DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED, AND WE'RE THE MOVING PARTY WITH A BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THAT IT IS ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE, AND WHICH IS, AGAIN, ANOTHER HIGH STANDARD TO APPLY. I MEAN, I I'VE SAID THIS TO, TO, TO AARON THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THE CHANCES OF SUCCEEDING ON THE APPEAL ARE LESS THAN 20%. AND THAT'S THAT, THAT THAT TIES IN TO THE THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF THE CASE, THE ESTABLISHED LAW DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, YOU KNOW, WITH WITH THE FACTS AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AND SO BUT THAT'S THE RISK THAT'S ALWAYS OUT THERE. AND SO THERE'S NOTHING AT THIS POINT THAT CAN CHANGE THAT.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. YEAH. SO I JUST WANTED TO FINISH UP HERE MR. KORN. SO, YOU KNOW, WITH WITH THAT IN MIND AND, AND THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR BOARD PRIORITIES, YOU KNOW, WHERE OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF EMBROILED IN THIS TOPIC FOR FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW. AND, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH TREY THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON YOU, REFOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.
YOU KNOW. I THINK I THINK IT'S TAKEN A LOT OF TIME, A LOT OF ENERGY AND DEFINITELY MONEY ALREADY. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M COMMITTED TO WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CONTINUE TO IMPROVE OUR PROCEDURES, THAT, YOU KNOW, PARENTS HAVE FULL TRANSPARENCY WITH THEIR LIBRARIES AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, ARE INFORMED, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEND OUT, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION TO PARENTS THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, KNOWING, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR RIGHTS AND, AND HOW TO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY CHOOSE TO LIMIT THEIR, THEIR STUDENTS ACCESS TO CERTAIN MATERIALS THAT THEY DO, THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THEN CONTINUING TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE THIS PROCESS OF IMPROVEMENT. I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT EXERCISE FOR US TO DO THAT. AND I THINK WE'VE WE'VE ALREADY ACHIEVED SOME OF THOSE GOALS AND THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS THAT.
YOU KNOW, SINCE SINCE PROGRESS HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE ON THAT FRONT, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S LEFT WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD WAS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TRYING TO PURSUE CONTINUING TO REMOVE THIS BOOK FROM OUR HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES, AT THAT POINT, I THINK WE'RE WE'RE REALLY MOVING INTO. INTO DANGEROUS TERRITORY THAT. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S IT'S DEFINITELY MORE SINCE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, SINCE WE'RE ONLY HOUSING THIS BOOK NOW IN HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES, I DON'T SEE WHERE THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IS. YEAH. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN WE WE CAN, YOU KNOW, LEGALLY REMOVE THIS BOOK FROM HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES. SO WITH THAT AND THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO POSSIBLY WIN, AND EVEN IF WE DID, THEN THE STATE COULD TAKE IT HIGHER, THEY COULD GO, THEY
[00:40:06]
CAN CONTINUE THIS, THIS LITIGATION AGAINST US AT A HIGHER COURT, AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO FIGHT IT. SO ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE THE TIME I'VE BEEN GIVEN TO TO SPEAK. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. SEWELL. MR. KORN. YEAH. AGAIN, I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS, AS I WASN'T ON THE BOARD WHEN THE VOTE WAS TAKEN. I WILL SAY THAT IF THERE EVER WAS A BOOK THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED FOR BEING IN, YOU KNOW, NOT AGE APPROPRIATE, IT'S THIS BOOK AND THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT THIS IS SOME BOOK OF REDEMPTION OR CARING ABOUT SOME CHILD WHO IS IS GENDER CONFUSED OR HAS CONFUSION ABOUT SEXUALITY IS JUST IT'S JUST THE MOST HEINOUS MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACT, THE IDEA THAT ONE SHOULD HAVE A PICTURE, A MANUAL OF OF SUICIDE. IF YOU CARE ABOUT A CHILD AND WHETHER YOU'RE WHATEVER YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE, IF YOU CARE ABOUT A CHILD, YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL THEM. WHY WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO KILL THEMSELVES? IT IS THE MOST INSANE IDEA THAT THE JOB OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS TO REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT SITS. IF WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A OF A OF A COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IS IT'S GOING TO BE OVERRIDDEN BY THE STATE. JUST HAVE THE STATE RUN IT ALL. IT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS TO BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF THE TAXPAYER AND THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN AND THE EXPENDITURES.THIS BOOK OF ALL BOOKS SHOWS CHILDREN HOW TO ACTUALLY COMMIT SUICIDE. IF THIS IS NOT ABOUT, I MEAN, THE VULGARITY OF IT. I MEAN, I READ THE BOOK, THE VULGARITY OF IT, I MEAN, THE MISSTATEMENT THAT THERE'S SOME I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT STICKING A HOT DOG IN SOMEONE'S ORIFICE IS SEEMINGLY ABOUT AS VULGAR AS ONE COULD GET. BUT I'M OPPOSED TO THAT. AND PUTTING THAT IN FRONT OF A TEN YEAR OLD'S EYES, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF YOU HAVE A CHILD WHO AND YOU REALLY THINK THAT CHILDREN OUGHT TO BE PROTECTED, THIS OF ALL BOOKS NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EYES OF CHILDREN. AND THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THE CONTENTION THAT SOMEHOW PARENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO DECIDE WHAT THEIR CHILDREN SEE IN A SCHOOL LIBRARY ON THE SCHOOL SHELF, WHEN WHEN THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF BOOKS AVAILABLE FOR THE CHILDREN. HOW IS THIS PARENT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT THAT BOOK HAS A PICTURE OF, OF A OF A SUICIDE MANUAL? HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW? ARE YOU GOING TO PUT THAT IN FRONT OF MY TEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER? GOD FORBID. I'M SORRY, BUT THIS IS IF THERE WAS EVER A BOOK AND A PLACE TO TO FIGHT, TO STAND OUR GROUND AS FAR AS THE VALUES OF OUR COMMUNITY AND PROTECTING CHILDREN, THIS IS IT, THE BOOK. AND I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENT. HOLD ON AARON, REAL QUICK. SORRY. I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENT. THE BOOK IS NOT A MANUAL FOR SUICIDE. IT'S REALLY NOT. THERE ARE NO PICTURES SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS HOW YOU DO THAT.
THIS IS HOW THIS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY, OR THE BEST WAY OR THE EASIEST WAY. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BOOK THAT SAYS IT. IT IMPLIES THAT HE IS THINKING ABOUT IT. IT IMPLIES YOU KNOW, HIS METHOD OR WHAT HE CHOSE ON THAT CERTAIN, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT HE MIGHT DO. AND THEN IT SAYS IT. THEN IT SHOWS HIM DECIDING NOT TO AND GOING ON TO LIVE A BETTER LIFE. THAT IS THE STORY THAT IS IN THIS BOOK, AND THAT IS THE STORY THAT SOME STUDENTS NEED TO NOT END UP HARMING THEMSELVES. IT IS NOT A MANUAL. I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT FROM, MR. KORN, BUT I DID READ THE BOOK. I'VE TALKED TO MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY, STUDENTS, LIBRARIANS, PROFESSIONALS, AND NOBODY HAS THAT SAME OPINION. THANK YOU. I JUST NEED TO RESPOND TO THAT.
MR. TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND THE RESPONSE IS SIMPLY THIS. YOU KNOW, HALF THE KIDS IN EIGHTH GRADE CAN'T READ. OKAY. SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT PICTURES, RIGHT? YOU HAVE A 53%, YOU KNOW, PASSING THE BASIC LITERACY STANDARDS IN THIS COUNTY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR STORY OF REDEMPTION AND THIS AND THIS FANTASY OF OF OF REDEMPTION AND AND READING THE STORY, THEY CAN'T READ, HALF THE KIDS CAN'T READ. THEY SEE A PICTURE OF A KNIFE TAKING TO THE TAKING TO THE TO THE RISK. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU, BUT THAT WHEN THEY WHEN WHEN A KID SEES A PICTURE AND THEY'RE GENDER CONFUSED OR THEY HAVE SEXUALITY CONCERNS AND YOU'RE SHOWING THEM A PICTURE BOOK ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T READ THE WORD, THEY MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO YOU. YOU'RE ON THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, AN EDUCATOR. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU.
IF YOU CAN'T READ, YOU SEE A PICTURE THAT MIGHT BE AN OPTION FOR A KID. AND I DON'T NEED A
[00:45:02]
10 OR 11 YEAR OLD TO SEE THAT AND GET THE WRONG IDEA. OKAY, THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A TEN YEAR OLD CHILD. I'M SORRY. JUST IT JUST ISN'T. AND IT'S OUR JOB TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN AS MUCH AS IT IS TO PROVIDE THEIR EDUCATION. I WISH MORE KIDS COULD READ. I MEAN, HALF IS PRETTY BAD AND THAT'S EIGHTH GRADE. YOU WANT TO PUT IT INTO SIXTH GRADERS HANDS? IT'S EVEN WORSE. WELL, I NEVER SAID THAT. I WANT TO PUT IT INTO MIDDLE SCHOOLERS HANDS AND BUT THE AGAIN, THE PICTURE SURE IS THERE. BUT THE FOLLOWING PICTURES RIGHT AFTER THAT SHOW THE STUDENT IN TAKING OUT THE WORDS THE FOLLOWING PICTURE SHOW. YOU KNOW THIS CHILD GOING ON TO BE WITH HIS FRIENDS TO LIVE, YOU KNOW, TO NOT COMMIT SUICIDE. SO EVEN IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU TAKE ALL THE WORDS OUT OF IT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT PICTURES OF SOMEBODY NOT KILLING THEMSELVES AND MOVING ON TO LIVE A BETTER LIFE THAT IS SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE THAT THEY CARE ABOUT. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, BOTH OF YOU. THIS IS LAUREN. MAY I SPEAK SO I THINK. I'M SORRY. WHO IS THIS? THIS IS LAUREN. CAN YOU HEAR ME? GO AHEAD. YEAH. SO I WANT TO. I WANT TO BRING US BACK TO HIGH LEVEL. OKAY? WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH ON THIS BOOK ALL DAY LONG. TO ME, THIS VOTE REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BOOK.SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE WORKGROUP THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE. RIGHT. DOCTOR BULSON WAS AHEAD OF KIND OF THE TIME LIKE, THIS IS COMING DOWN. WE NEED TO PUT A PROCEDURE IN PLACE. I WOULD ARGUE THE PROCEDURE THAT WAS PUT WAS WAS FOLLOWED. WE HAD A RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. THEY MADE A DECISION. IT GETS APPEALED TO DOCTOR BULSON THAT HAPPENED. THEN IT GETS APPEALED TO THE BOARD. IT'S A PART OF WHAT WE ALL PUT TOGETHER. RIGHT. THE BOARD WAS A PART OF THE PROCEDURE. WE HAD A VOTE, RIGHT? AND WE VOTED. ALL OF IT WAS FOLLOWED. WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, THE PROCEDURE THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE WAS FOLLOWED. SO THE DECISION IN FRONT OF US IS THE STATE BOARD STEPPED IN AND OVERRODE A FORGET WHETHER YOU AGREE THE BOOK OR NOT. THEY OVERRODE OUR DECISION LOCALLY. THAT TO ME IS THE ESSENCE OF THE DECISION WE ARE ABOUT TO MAKE. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE STATE BOARD CAN STEP IN AND OVERRIDE A LOCAL BOOK? IT'S ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED BOARD AND OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE FAMILIES WE SERVE. WHEN THE STATE BOARD OVERRIDES A LOCAL DECISION, IT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. IT SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT THE VOICES OF PARENTS, TEACHERS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS DON'T MATTER. WE EXIST FOR A REASON. WE KNOW OUR COMMUNITIES. I AGREE WITH A COMMENT THAT ALMOST THAT EVERY ONE OF YOU MADE SOMETHING YOU SAID I AGREE WITH. BUT WE KNOW OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR STUDENTS BEST. WE TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD PROCEDURES AND TO PROTECT STUDENTS. IF SOMETHING IS TOO EXPLICIT TO BE READ ALOUD IN THE CLASSROOM, IT SHOULDN'T BE SITTING ON A LIBRARY SHELF FOR MINORS. THAT'S NOT CENSORSHIP. THAT'S RESPONSIBILITY. BUT I'D LIKE TO BRING US BACK TO IT. IS DOES THE STATE BOARD CAN THEY OVERRIDE WHAT WE DECIDE? I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK FOR CONSIDERATION. THEY WANTED TO MAKE THIS DECISION. THEY WILL NOT RECONSIDER IT. IT'S A WASTE OF OUR TIME. WE NEED TO SEND US TO THE NEXT LEVEL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS PAGE. I'LL GIVE SOME FINAL COMMENTS HERE. I'LL JUST GIVE SOME FINAL COMMENTS HERE, AND THEN WE CAN ASK FOR A SECOND OR IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS. SO I AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAID, LAUREN. I DO THINK OBVIOUSLY THE STATE DOES HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS TO OVERTURN, BUT IT SHOULD BE VERY NARROW. AND EVEN THOUGH THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY WADE AND TREY TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS POTENTIALLY BEING A DISTRACTION MOVING FORWARD, I THINK WE ARE IN UNCHARTED TERRITORY HERE BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE STATE HAS DONE THIS, AND WE DON'T WANT TO. THIS IS PRECEDENT SETTING. NOW, HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED IN THIS DECISION ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE BOOK OR, YOU KNOW, IS IT SUICIDE OR IS IT NOT, OR THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. TO ME, THIS IS MORE ABOUT THE FINDING THAT THE LOCAL BOARD THAT WE MADE, THAT IT WAS UNREASONABLE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE TO PUT A BOOK ACCESSIBLE DOWN TO AS YOUNG AS TEN YEAR OLDS, WHEN THE BOOK'S OWN PUBLISHER SAYS IT'S FOR 14 YEAR OLDS OR HIGHER. THEY DID NOT CONSIDER ONE OF THE CRITERIA CRITERION OF AGE APPROPRIATENESS. AND SO I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN SAY YOUR DECISION WAS FOLLOWING THAT.
THAT CRITERION OF AGE APPROPRIATENESS WHEN YOU ALLOWED THE BOOK TO BE ABLE TO HAVE UNFETTERED ACCESS TO TO YOUNG CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF ITS INTENDED AGE GROUP. AND I
[00:50:02]
BELIEVE THAT ONLY PARENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT MATERIAL THEIR STUDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THAT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR THEIR AGE GROUP. THE OTHER FATAL FLAW IN THE PROCEDURE ITSELF, WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN FIXED NOW, IS THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL APPEAL, THE BOARD WAS BASICALLY FORCED INTO A BINARY DECISION. OUTCOME MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. IF A TAILORED DECISION COULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED. SO FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I AM ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF MOVING THIS FORWARD. AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER OPINIONS, I SUGGEST SOMEONE MAKE A SECOND. I WELL, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND YOU KNOW, IT RELATES TO WHAT YOU SAID. AND LAUREN SAID ON AND THE COST IMPACT OF WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD FIRST TAKE A MOVE TO ASK FOR A RECONSIDERATION BEFORE WE MOVE IT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE. AND THE BEST APPROACH AS FAR AS HOW HOW THE LENGTH OF TIME AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO ON A COST PERSPECTIVE AND LEVEL OF EFFORT, LIKE, CAN WE GET A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WOULD BE THE THE BEST PROCESS? AND I THINK THAT'S A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR DECISION. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO RECONSIDER IT. THEY WANTED TO MAKE THIS DECISION. WHY WOULD WE GO BACK? AND I BELIEVE GREG HAS ALREADY SPOKEN TO THAT. IT IT'S IT'S NOT WORTH OUR TIME. I AGREE.
AND ALSO THAT THAT THAT REQUIRES THAT ALSO REQUIRES US TO HAVE NEW INFORMATION. WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT WAS PROCEDURALLY WRONG? DID THEY MAKE A MISTAKE? THIS IS THIS IS MORE ABOUT THAT. THEY DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION. I DON'T THINK THAT BECAUSE IT WAS AN APPEAL. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT APPEALED THE DECISION SHOULD HAVE HAD ANY SAY IN THE APPEAL. BECAUSE WE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS. IT WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE BOARD.
THE BOARD MADE A DECISION BASED ON THE APPEAL. SO THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO APPEAL THAT DECISION WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, IN MY OPINION. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE STATE EVEN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE THAT DECISION, BECAUSE NOBODY THAT WAS CONCERNED IN THE APPEAL FILED IT OR, YOU KNOW, FURTHERED THE APPEAL THEN. SO I AGREE WITH LAUREN. I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO EDIT MY MOTION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL THE STATE'S DECISION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. THIS IS LAUREN. I SECOND, I THINK WE NEED TO ALSO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT GREG HIMSELF CAME OUT AND SAID THAT WE ONLY HAVE WHAT HE PREDICTS IS A 20% CHANCE OF WINNING THIS CASE. WE ARE WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON A CASE THAT IS PRETTY MUCH ALMOST UNWINNABLE. I THINK WE'RE FORGETTING THAT WE WE WE ARE, WE REPRESENT OUR CONSTITUENTS, WHICH ARE TAXPAYERS. SO WHY ARE WE WASTING THEIR MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW IS BARELY WINNABLE? OKAY, I GAVE YOU THIS IS A THERE'S A SECOND THERE'S A SECOND ON THE TABLE. SO WHICH MEANS THAT WE VOTE I GAVE SINCE TODAY'S VOTE IS PREFERENTIAL, I GAVE HIM THE COURTESY OF THAT FINAL STATEMENT. BUT THERE WAS A MOTION AND THERE WAS A SECOND. DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE. DOCTOR. POINT. I MEAN. YES, DOCTOR POINTON, MR. PERRY DID JOIN THE MEETING, SO I WILL BE CALLING ON HER AS WELL, MRS. PERRY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MRS. PERRY. YOU'RE MUTED. CAN YOU PLEASE UNMUTE? OKAY, I WILL GO BACK TO HER. MR. SEWELL. NO. DOCTOR MUELLER. NO. MR. MCVICKER. NO. MR. CORN. YES.
MRS. HAHN? YES. MRS. ALVAREZ. YES. VICE PRESIDENT. PAIGE. YES. MRS. PERRY. OKAY. UNABLE TO GET HER VOTES. PRESIDENT BOYNTON. YES. SO WE HAVE FIVE YESES, TWO NO'S, AND THE PREFERENTIAL FROM THE STUDENT MEMBER. SO THIS MOTION PASSES. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, EVERYONE. TODAY.
[00:55:06]
AND. LET ME PULL UP MY NOTES. I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED A MOTION TO END THIS OR NOT. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. OKAY? NO, I DON'T, BECAUSE WE AGREED ON THE AGENDA. NEXT* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.