The time is 7.03 p.m.

Um I'll call this meeting to order of the personnel committee of the 32nd Board of Representatives.

I'll start by uh by taking uh a roll call of the of the board members.

Uh I'll start Virgil De la Cruz.

Don't see him.

Okay.

Uh Theo Gross.

Here, thank you.

Uh Wynton Hill.

Reverend Hill.

Don't see him.

He said that people don't know.

Right.

Yeah.

So they know the answer.

Uh Sabi Pavia, can you say something so we know you're here?

Present.

Well done.

Uh Maureen Pollack.

Thank you, Maureen.

Ricardo Salas.

Okay, do not see him.

And uh and Carl Weinberg, I'm present.

Uh Virgil.

Say something indicating you're present.

Present.

Thank you.

Well done.

And just sign the sign-in sheet.

Um we have five committee members.

I thereby uh declare a quorum.

Okay.

We have um other board members in attendance.

Uh Karen Camparelli.

And uh are there any other?

I don't see any others.

Oh, and Eric Morris.

Eric uh being unusually demure with Eric Morrison, thank you.

Majority leader Eric Morrison.

Thank you.

Thank you both for uh for joining us.

Um as I said I hereby declare declare a quorum.

Um we originally had two items on the agenda.

Uh the first P32.001 uh rejection of the tentative agreement with the board of ed and the parent facilitators of UPSEU local 24 unit 123.

I've been advised by counsel by for the city um that the um that the board of representatives um does not play a role in the uh decisions on this particular uh uh agreement and therefore we I'm going to withdraw it from the meeting if I can have a motion to do that.

Seven.

Thank you.

A second second okay.

We'll do this by by voice vote.

All in favor of withdrawing it, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Um abstentions.

Thank you.

Um next, uh the next item is P32.002, rejection of the tentative agreement with the Board of Education and the Stanford Administration of Unit SAU.

Um, so we will take up that item.

Um before we do that, I believe Representative uh Vice Chair Pavia has a point of personal privilege.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I do have a point of personal privilege.

I have to recuse myself from this under the advice of um uh legal counsel uh that it poses a um a conflict of interest.

So I will be shutting off my camera and uh and abstaining from voting on this item.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, uh Representative Pavia.

Okay, with that, uh let's get into the meat of the uh of the subject.

I'm going to uh turn the floor over to uh Dr.

Fernandez.

Um and uh you have a very confusing title.

Or CHR.

Dr.

Fernandez is in charge of the people side of the Stanford Public Schools.

Um and to Ryan Feely, who is the uh director of finance and CFO for the Stanford Public Schools.

So I will turn it over to you for uh for your comments, and then we'll from there we will then move to uh questions by the committee and then give a I'll give a summary.

Um so I was uh I represented the board of ed in this negotiation along with Michael Hyman, our former board of education president, uh Andy George, who I think is with us.

I see him there, current board of education president, and Prasad Tonga, who's uh also on the board of ed, along with Tom Mooney, our legal counsel for these negotiations.

Uh this for one of the membership I got me here.

Okay.

No, by the way, I'm giving up you so that much uh speaking to something.

I wonder if the people come here.

Uh uh, Karen, can you hear uh or Angie?

Can you hear Dr.

Frank?

Yes, we I can hear him.

Yes.

Okay.

Maybe you need to sit closer to the TV.

No.

Um this is a successor contract, it's a three-year contract that takes us out to the 2029 school year.

Uh the contract provides increases of three GWI increases of three and a quarter percent in the first year, three and a quarter in the second, and three and a half in the third year.

Um I did provide uh comps for this board to review.

I'm just gonna review a little bit of the highlights though.

Um overall, the the settlement on this salary is comparable to settlements with other bargaining units.

There's a document like this that shows some of the other settlements of at the time there were 29 settlements with the uh average increase for those 29 settlements at the time being 9.81 percent.

I can no longer hear the meeting no, it's it's frozen on my end.

Yes.

I'm gonna contact Sammy now.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm here.

Oh, you are yeah, we can't hear it anymore.

Um yeah, though.

Karen, can you hear us now?

Now we now we can.

Yeah, we can hear.

Yeah, it dropped it momentarily for some reason.

Um I just add one more thing.

Please do anybody say this.

You might or might not point out information.

Oh yeah, sir.

Uh, for the folks who dropped off, what was the last thing that you heard Dr.

Fernandez say when you could pick up where it dropped.

He was probably three sentences in to his to whatever he was saying, and then it dropped.

Congratulations.

Thank you, Representative.

So I'm going to start with um the administrators represent or made up of about 90 members.

These are our principals, our assistant principals, our directors, assistant directors, and various department play curriculum and special education.

Uh, but there's approximately 90 members.

Um I'll just start at the beginning.

I represented the board in these negotiations along with Michael Hyman, the former board president, Andy George, our current board president, Prasad Tunga, who currently serves on the board along with Tom Mooney.

Uh we agreed to a three-year contract, uh going through the 28-29 school year.

Uh increases over the three years were three and a quarter percent in the first year, and three and a quarter of the second year, three and a half percent in the third year.

Uh overall, the the three-year increase is comparable to settlements with other administrative bargaining units across state.

Uh, we provided a list of those settlements.

There were 20, I believe it was 29 at the time that shipping equivalent had this information.

The average increase at that time across uh these districts was 9.81% for the three years.

Um our increase was 10% for the SAU, which is 0.19% higher than that three-year increase of GWI.

When we look at insurance premium cost sharing, uh that increase from 22 and a half percent to 23% over the three years.

There's also uh we shared cops on that as well as the last page of the Fairfield County um administrator salaries salaries.

There are a few minor language uh changes that that summarizes it.

Ryan uh I have nothing to add until the four test questions.

Okay, right.

Who uh who on the committee has the first question?

Yes, Virgil.

Or you're the financial freedom.

This is just no last page.

Yeah, I'm not sure why.

Um but uh if you want to if you if it's helpful, I will um regularly.

Other questions, but I have one.

Okay, well, let's just give Virgil just a moment to uh read it.

Virgin on the meeting while I'm uh so uh representative.

Thank you.

Um what was the decision?

Was it unanimous?

Do we have it similar to what?

The board of finances negative advisory opinion was we can have negative unit negative and do we have uh reason of the that is that we that is the sum total of their verbosity.

Is it appropriate for me to ask you through the chair?

Um why you think they rejected it?

The summary for sure committee.

They were very clear on the two points that are listed here that the overall uh increase over the time period was greater than the averages presented for other state bargaining units, and that the third year of three and a half percent, uh, in their opinion was too high.

Um follow-up with that.

Um, I saw that you provided the comps, and the comps were statewide, but what were the comps compared to the largest cities?

Yeah, statewide.

You look into that.

Well, Norwalk's in there.

That's one of that's probably the best comparison for state numbers.

So that was listed.

It's in the comps here.

So we're we're generally lower than Norwalk, but we um for I know for positions, I shouldn't say that for elementary, we're not, but for middle school secondary, we are generally lower, those were principal, middle school, system principal.

I think the principal.

Excuse me, uh, Dr.

Fernandez.

I think that what I'm looking at isn't that's not correct.

It's uh Stanford elementary school is one ninety well is uh about five hundred dollars.

I corrected myself for elementary, we were not lower, but for middle school for these are the men different positions.

I'm pretty sure for the middle school and high school positions uh we are um correct, you are correct for those permissions.

Well, I'd have some uh other classes more for the end.

I'll yield the floor for now.

Okay.

Who has the next who on the committee has the next question?

Representative Cross.

Um, I guess what's the uh logic for doing the largest wage increase in the third year and going up, sort of going up.

I see a lot of the other settlements um and the state average.

Um the first year is highest and sort of goes descends down to the third year.

Um is there uh is there a logic to that?

It's not really a logic.

I'll just say it was part of uh early negotiation process.

We started much further apart.

Um it was I I can't think of a specific reason final last year that it's where we ended.

Um and then I'm I'm wondering uh uh the percentage there's a discrepancy between the increase in salaries and then the the increase in total cost.

Um explain that sort of discrepancy.

I think so, but can you clarify just so I make sure and uh do you you have the memo that yeah I do so um right?

So the numbers for salary increases goes from three and a quarter to three and a quarter to three and a half, um then the percent increase for costs and a cost analysis box, it goes from the numbers are different.

Oh, yes, I said okay, sorry, yes, including the steps.

So there are three steps in the contract, and so when administrators advance uh they receive essentially a uh salary increase for increasing that step.

The GWI increase increases the value of each of those steps, and so the total cost is our projection of administrators moving through the step grid over the life of the contract.

Um I just want to interject a question to the committee members because um please indulge us almost everybody on this committee is new to the personnel committee.

Uh does everybody understand what Ryan means by um by the steps.

In the in the sure sure.

Most of our city contracts are laid out with a salary grid that can say it's what we call steps and grades.

So the type of job someone has, and then essentially their years of tenure.

Well, that's a little bit too simplistic, but in theory, someone comes into their job on step one, and then the next year they're on step two, and so forth, so that they will get an increase in their wage without being promoted.

And when we do these contracts uh upon renegotiation, we increase the value of each step so that individuals will receive wage increases without needing to be promoted, because in some cases they can't be promoted necessarily over a principal position.

Okay, can I ask a question to you in terms of if it's our first time on this committee?

If I I see that this is a rejection item that if I want to reject this, I I want to reject the rejection item.

I'm saying if I'm taking a position of I actually like this contract and want to see it go through.

Um my questions are not to negotiate the actual monies involved, it's to figure out if I would like to see this go through despite this negative opinion.

Correct?

We have a binary choice as as a committee and ultimately as the board has a binary choice.

Okay.

The binary choice is to either reject the agreement or to accept the agreement.

The rejection either re we either vote yes to reject, okay, or no to not reject, which means to accept.

Um those are our two as as uh the vote that we'll take for nine.

Those are the two, those are the two choice, those are the two choices that we have.

We do not have the choice of saying we want the three and a half percent in the third year to be 3.48.

Okay, that that helps with yeah.

So I do have only one question.

Um that fine.

Um should this get rejected?

What are the steps for you guys coming back to the table to renegotiate with the other parties?

We would obviously bring it back to the SAU, but we would be forced to go to arbitration.

Okay, you answered my question.

If we couldn't come to an agreement with the SAU.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um, any other questions by committee members?

Yes, sorry.

Please burn.

I have the reasons for the rejection for the negative.

Wasn't the total increase?

Is that what state have already applied to salaries?

Uh above the average or fair count.

As I understand it between the average for Fairfield County, and the increase here is above the average in Fairfield County.

What the total increase is.

That is correct.

That is correct.

Then why is applied to salaries ab or above the average for fair flip counting?

I'm assuming that you'd say it's not correct.

No, I don't I don't say that it's not correct.

I I think it is probably fair to say that our current wages are average for Fairfield County.

That's what these documents are that show.

In some cases, we are below Norwalk, above normal walk, but probably average overall.

Please question.

One of the reasons I'm making sure I understand this properly, and this should be totally related, but by shear for reasons.

Corpus corpus.

So she's uh I knew.

So I asked her, uh, what are some of your concerns?

Among the things you mentioned, and one of the few of the things she mentioned first was that she felt that the state was being overgenerous with state salaries, and the impact of that down the line on funding the pensions health and so on.

So I left the body with an impression this is a major concern of generous things are and there was a time that within for a municipality, you would settle for a not so great salary, but five less benefits at the end today we get five years benefits and five minutes benefits at the end, so that has weighed heavily on what the implications of this are first with the acceptance that uh municipal and state salad are general, and what that means later on as you try to fund the attached benefits.

So I just wanted to make sure that this statement was correct.

Uh okay.

Uh fine without ideal.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, yeah.

Um the state, the total state average over three years is 9.81.

What's that number for the average of Fairfield Candidate?

Sorry, three-year total, how much we're out of it.

So in the memo, if the 9.81 is for the state average, those 29 settlements that I mentioned.

Yep.

And um county, you only had the current year, the first year, which was 3.85.

That was the average seat if it's in this.

If you look closely at the settlements document, I don't think it's in the uh so I don't have that.

I'm sorry.

Okay, but we're still to your understanding we're still above the fair book counting per year average so I can't confirm that.

Okay.

Um you're saying before that we are sort of near the top in terms of fair book counting that there's really a bit on there.

That's looking at uh like position by position.

Right.

The difference is that this document is referring to recent contract increases, whereas these documents are looking at actual salaries, which are not necessarily the same.

Yeah, and part of the issue with the comparing to other settlements is that not all districts are going through this process at the same time.

Yeah, so we're limited by who else's negotiations come up in 2025.

Other questions from the committee?

Uh quite okay.

Uh questions from representatives not on the committee.

Eric or Karen.

Eric.

Thank you, Mr.

Fair.

Um through you too, Sir Feely.

Um, how do you how do you reconcile the negative the reasons for the negative opinion from the board of finance to the justification and agreement that you reached, especially with respect to the 3.5, the 25 basis plus difference in year three?

What I would say is that these are these are difficult positions.

These are people that have a lot of influence and effect on the district.

Um it's very competitive.

We the districts that are around us pay very well.

Um we're competing with many of these districts, and we always want to uh put in place the strongest candidates we can.

So I think it's important that we are competitive, and I think there's variation on what that number could look like, but these are very important positions.

Yeah, the only other point I would make is that as the documents show that the total increase over three years on this contract is about 1.9 million dollars, that's $600 and something thousand dollars per year.

The the variance between this and the state average, meaning if we did a three of three, uh 3.1, the difference is about 140,000 over the three years in total, and the total salaries that we pay on average is close to 19 million dollars a year for this group.

So you're talking the total three-year payout of close to 57 million dollars and a variance of about 140,000, and so while we never want to say you know, money is non-material, when when that's the variance, and that's the variance after a negotiation between two parties that that came to that number, uh, it does seem like it's it's very close.

Um it's a cooperative settlement.

So that comes to about 24, 25 basis points over three years on 57 million.

Right, right.

Okay, so that's about the on the whole thing that includes the 50, the three and a half, three, three and quarter, three and a quarter, and three and a half.

Right.

And in fact, it's probably it's slightly less than that because there is an increase in premium cost share, which is not included in the uh the wage calculation.

Okay, uh one additional question, just without revealing anything from negotiations that you can't, obviously.

Um was would you how would you say if you can answer it uh about retention versus attracting newer candidate new candidates and being in the best position to bring new people on as we hear by that for me?

Retention.

Sarah, if I might interject a specific question, sure.

Um on that on that subject.

In the in you you said before that there were 90 years.

Okay.

Dr.

Fernandes, you said you said earlier that there are approximately 90 members of this bargaining unit.

Um how many of those um how many vacant positions are there that are filled by someone in an active position?

That are either back vacant or filled by somebody in an interim role.

Probably I mean it's not many.

I'm trying to think if there's one.

It's either one or none.

Okay, so it's trivial.

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah, I've I want to dig into the the subject that the representative of Morrison was starting to uh talk about, which is recruiting and retention, because one of the reasons to have competitive compensation is both to attract and retain.

Um within, you know, obviously within our with our within our means.

Um currently virtually all of the positions are are filled.

How many of them are filled with um or filled by entrance by by people over the last call it two three years um who weren't from within the district?

Roughly trivial number again, or it's a small number.

Okay, but we do hire outside as well.

We typically grow our own and select internally, but we have lost candidates to other districts as well.

I think that you know it's the cat there's a lot of candidates for these positions.

I'm not gonna deny that.

We might get 75 applicants for uh an assistant principal position.

It's getting the caliber of that candidate that you want, which is really important and not always out there, and that's the truth.

How um how to the best of your you know your memory?

And I apologize, I mean we should prepare you for these questions.

Um so you could you know so you could be in through research.

How many administrators have resigned over the last three years for reasons other than retirement or health or transfer to another Stanford public schools position?

I'm trying to get at the retention, but it's it's a small number.

Please.

I'm so sorry, procedure.

Did Eric have the floor and I asked my late and then I saw Karen's.

Did she raise her hand?

Yeah, no, I didn't know if Eric had the floor.

No, you know, Steph.

Yeah, my my question was more 10,000 foot view and the detail that you're just in.

Yes, I had asked him if I could explore the same greater specificity.

I was gonna answer to the last question was uh just multiple.

Yeah, and I don't want to, I don't want to comment with specificity because I understand I know we've had I know I'm thinking just last year we had a couple, but it might have been there, might have been more in other years, might have been less than other years.

I don't know.

That's why my question was was broad in your sense of things.

Is it more about retention or attracting new people?

Generally, I'd say it's more about retention, okay?

Because we are we tend to hire within, we tend to grow our own in Stanford, we try to support growth in our teachers and our teacher leaders and our new administrators.

So but it's also candidates.

There is every once in a while.

All right, so there's one one more general question.

I mean, and not even specific to this, but has relevance.

Generally, what percentage of promotions or new hires are are filled by homegrown inter candidates.

That's a higher percentage.

Yeah, 70, 89.

Is there such a broad it's so hard for me to say it?

But it's a high.

Yeah, it's much higher than the numbers I shared.

Okay, that that's that's necessary.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I yield and uh representative camparelli.

If if you unmute yourself, you may have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh and I'm not sure if this is sort of going to be redundant, but so are through you, Chair, to uh Dr.

Or uh Mr.

Fieley.

The Board of the The Board of Finance rejected this mostly because of the third year or the third step.

And so you're saying that you're you're having a hard time retaining talent through the third year because of this pay raise.

I I'm not understanding that.

Like if the Board of Finance is rejecting this, they're rejecting it mostly for the third year, right?

The increase in the third year.

Just to clarify, so the Board of Finance rejected the agreement, or they provided a negative advisory opinion, citing the third year.

Um I don't know, and I I apologize if this is not you're getting at.

I don't know that Dr.

Fernandez was speaking specifically about retention in the third year, or that that third year number is connected to retention, more so that the overall contract was intended to support retention.

Is that does that answer the question?

Yes.

Thank you.

I yield thank you.

Um so just as a follow-up, Dr.

Fernandez.

My understanding of your comment from before when I I think it was Representative Gross who asked why the bigger increase in the third year, and you went like that's the way negotiations work sometimes.

I'm paraphrasing.

Um did I understand you correctly?

That that was just that happened to be rather than rather than a strategic consideration, that wasn't that was a negotiated outcome.

Yes, please.

Thank you every time.

Just to make sure we understand uh my understanding of the the answer for another is a retention is not a major problem.

No matter what year, first year, third year of what year of original third third year of the career.

So this is am I correct in understanding that pretentious is not a major approach?

It's important to the district.

Of course, the retention is important.

A major problem.

It's hard to it's hard to answer your question.

Yeah, you know, I have my own business.

I'm returning.

Was it important to work right?

Uh I just wanted to recognise it.

Uh both problem.

I'll I'll answer it.

It's a challenge to find high caliber quality candidates.

Oh, yes.

I forgot to agree with you.

I don't understand that as well.

It's in fact I would say that is uh universal programs.

Yeah, I wasn't so let me try to add ask the question that I think Representative Delic might be getting at in a different way.

Um I think we've reached sort of an agreement in terms of looking at the numbers that the total salary increase over the three years is slightly greater than um than the average for what I'll call our our peers.

Okay.

Um and our uh and our salaries um uh for most of the positions in this bargaining are at or slightly are consistent with our peers, maybe maybe maybe slightly above, some slightly below it, but more or less consistent.

Is putting a slightly higher than average increase rate on top of competitive salaries.

uh for most of the positions in this bargaining that are or slightly are consistent with our peers maybe maybe maybe slightly above some slightly below it but more or less consistent is putting a slightly higher than average increase rate oh on top of competitive salaries is that it sounds to me tell me if if I understand correctly it sounds to me that that is a um sort of a proactive you're taking a proactive retention approach rather than taking the risk that the risk of of creating a retention problem it's is it is that a fair exponent understanding uh sort of strategically why these numbers and what they are I think you could say that the proactive approach um not knowing what else might happen in other districts that where we didn't have information on at the time it is very competitive these positions can be very competitive so I think that's fair okay thank you um one more question that I have and up there um that I have is um how do these um yeah these uh these contracts of course come public information um um and I apologize for this up myself um how does this three year increase rate compare to the last three the most recent three year increase rate in the uh agreement for the teachers it's probably right there if not slightly lower and when does the teachers union come up for just let me just uh finalize the contract spast several years so it's at least another two and 2526 is year one of the three year yes okay well committee members something we'll look forward to um okay are there other questions okay um thank you very much for public meeting you're welcome to say but that's really guys of discussion um I'm gonna share my thoughts out loud so you can help correct me as it's my first meeting but from what I read before and listening to the presentation I am leaning to supporting your proposal so I guess rejecting the rejection and I support our schools our teachers and it seems like my only concern is setting a precedent so if we approve the increase and the new negotiation terms of the 3.5% in the third tier it sets a precedent however in business I think it's very important for retention not just about getting new talent it's retaining if there's a large cost involved every time you have to train a new teacher and bring them in.

So I would like to support this and on top of it the difference uh I heard 14000 is the difference amount of time and energy put into this uh this phenomenal amount for the idea of being able to retain teachers and it might be anecdotal but I've been on education for any my kids are in schools and I've watched the top walk out the door and lastly I keep hearing that on average on average well we're not the average city or the second largest city in Connecticut so that to me is moot when I hear that argument but I'm gonna stop there I will sit for to reject the rejection I don't know how you say no I will vote no support it is it is it is counterintuitive yes other comments uh look just gonna let's see if there's many members first oh representing legal risk you know it's a very hard we could close uh share a little uh we ratio someone for our schools you're gonna pay to some side to uh things look at these days you know that the things uh inform my thinking is the city school budget over 60 percent the cities budget is over 60 percent the school system was so that that's uh I'm not uh I'm informed by the five uh our salaries in general are changed uh informed by the impact of this number costs you know uh pension health benefits and so on uh whether we might get or not a 3.5 percent serving precedent which then to order to future bonds branch

So that's uh not uh I'm informed by the five uh our salaries in general are generals uh informed by the impact of this in number costs and uh pensional health benefits and so on uh whether we like it or not a 3.5 percent president, which then to all to future bonds branch so it's mentioned in a sort of the city's budget, the school budget lots of issues with police would be done the road.

So I asked to uh go out with the board of finance, which is supposed to take care of the finance of the series, uh resources that professed that can be done.

Now if it were to be rejected, it goes through arbitration instead of my record, I think with the results of our vision is no volume wins all the time.

The baby so we end up saying more than sure.

I'm very good.

It's like a phone from my sub effort.

So this is not the end of the road on uh arbitration would be yield a better results.

So for those reasons with the board of finance.

Thank you.

Um I'll get it speaks.

Um I'll come to the floor to representative.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, when we describe things like this, we use represent Delicruz in words like generous and better, um, certainly in the eyes of the beholder.

Uh I think um, you know, if we're looking at 140,000 over three years, it's 46,000 a year, which is a blip on a uh 650 million dollar budget, uh, if it's the difference between retention and not, and it's not just about retaining people who are good, it's also about finding people to replace them more than at least of equal caliber.

Uh, I think it's a small price to pay.

I do understand uh the the concern about the the additional uh 25 basis points in the third year being built in, and then every increase thereafter is based upon it.

But if we take the uh inflationary anomaly of the past few years due to COVID and coming out of it, you know, overall inflation trends at three three percent.

If we're giving three and a half percent, three and a quarter percent, we're you know we're getting basically a cost of living increase, and nobody ever gets to get ahead for their for their tenure or or or their professional accomplishments.

So I think it's important as part of if nothing more than an incentive to stay that we have to give people something, we have to give people something a little bit above inflation, not just a bare minimum cost of living increase, and and uh personally, I don't think that uh a cost of living increase is something I would categorize as uh generous.

I think it's the bare minimum we should do.

So to the extent that this exceeds inflation even by a small amount, uh I I can't see turning that down, so I would voting go to reject when it comes to the floor to the board because I don't get a vote here.

Of course, I think we're not voting tonight.

We are voting, but he's not because he's not a man.

He's expensive.

Yeah, long as change.

Now that I have the power.

Uh if anyone else before I make a comment.

Okay.

Uh so I I'll be candid with uh I'll be handed with with the committee.

Um I walked into this meeting with um some meaningful skepticism about the the wisdom of the of this tentative agreement.

Um this discussion has helped me see another side.

Um these are positions, particularly the positions in the schools, and just less frankly, less familiar with the with the director and assistant director positions in the you know in the in the board in the in the uh in the the school's office, but I'm very familiar with what the principals and assistant principals do.

Um there is there's nothing or there are very few things I would expect that create educational risk for our children, then turnover, particularly unplanned turnover, on expected turnover in the principal and assistant principal positions.

I suspect that you would agree with that having been there as I dearly recall for my kids.

Um within reason, that's not a risk worth taking the way I see the risk of we are in from based on Dr.

Fernandez's comments.

We very rarely lose a someone in one of these positions whom we want to keep and we want to retain.

That's very intriguing.

That's great.

Um I think it's a mistake to risk changing that.

And I think that if we reject the uh tentative agreement, we run some risk of changing that outcome.

And I'm not I don't think it's in our city's best interest.

I don't think it's in the interest of our students and parents and uh to to take that risk.

Uh and therefore, notwithstanding the skepticism I had coming in, but just looking at the numbers, um, I will be voting to reject.

And clarify what that means.

I will be voting not to reject.

Thank you.

With that, any other comments.

Okay.

Then we will take this to um a roll call vote.

Um I'll let's start with um representative um Pavia Yes, please.

Just because my both yeah, he needs to vote.

So he needs to vote to abstain.

Yes, please.

Uh uh Maureen has the floor with a question.

A clarification is just helping with my dyslexia.

Can you say it as vote no?

Okay.

So a vote yes is to yes rejects the contract.

Can't say reject me.

Yes means that it goes away.

It is means that it goes back to further negotiation and arbitrary or arbitrary.

Yes, likely arbitration.

That's what a yes vote means.

Thank you.

A no vote means that the that the contract goes forward, pending the course the full board.

Thank you.

No ask five times.

Okay.

Representative Pavia.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

And thank you for hanging in there.

Okay.

Representative Day La Cruz.

Uh no.

Um reason, so to speak.

Maybe if we all stand on our heads, we'll get this right here.

Representative gross.

He said yes to reject.

Representative Gross.

No.

Representative Pollock.

No.

And I am a no.

Angie, what's the totals?

It is zero, three, one.

No, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

One, three, one.

Okay, thank you.

So this committee votes no on rejection, and I will so report at the January 5th board meeting.

What was the one three one?

One vote to reject, three not to reject, and one abstention.

Thank you very much.

There being no further business, have a donut.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

At 758, I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.