I am the Vancouver School Board Chair, and I'd like to call this meeting to order. With deep gratitude and respect, we are honored to be learning and unlearning on the ancestral and unceded lands of the Humacquiam, Squamishogomeo, and TTsleil-Waututh. I had the privilege with Vice Chair and Trustee Fraser, along with Alison Ogden, Patricia McNeil, our superintendent, Helen McGregor, to visit school this afternoon to hear from a fellow trustee, John Chenoweth, who also is an indigenous educator and also is a director on our BC School Trustee Association, to speak to other educators this Pro D Day about ways to incorporate indigenous learnings into the classroom. And it was absolutely fabulous. So Thank you for that today, Helen and the team. Our meeting is currently being broadcast live and the recordings will be available after the meeting ends. We have a strong commitment to ethical conduct and it is our collective responsibility to ensure our meetings are conducted in a safe and respectful manner. As a Board of Education for a school district, it's important that we model the behavior that we expect from students in our schools. Thank you everyone who provided feedback during our financial planning process and our public engagement period. Your input is appreciated very much by the board here and helps inform the decisions that we make at the table.

For our agenda tonight, I'll start with introductions. So staff and trustees are in the boardroom at the Education Center here, and I welcome Superintendent McGregor and Secretary, Treasurer, Coughlin and fellow trustees. And I'll ask that they introduce themselves, starting with, to my right.

Trustee Susie Ma.

Trustee Christopher Richardson.

Trustee Betty Sheher. Avacyn Chassid.

Preeti Freedko, Trustee.

Lois Chan-Pedley, Trustee. Janet Fraser, Trustee Sheher.

Thank you. We have regrets from Trustee Josh Tseng. Okay, let's jump in moving to new business.

Yes, trustee. I would like to make an amendment to the agenda. Sure, we are.

Oh, good point. Actually, I don't see that tonight. I appreciate you jumping in when you did. What would you like to make a change to?

I would like to add a motion that I had submitted previously. And that motion is about a reinstatement of the living wage. and that was not included in this agenda package. And I would like to ask that that item be placed on this agenda.

For some clarity, did you hear back why it was not included?

Chair, I did hear back, but I am now moving to amend the agenda to include that item. Okay, just one moment here.

Okay, thank you for that clarification, Secretary Treasurer. So because the motion was around labor relations, we are currently in the process of, sorry, trustees, is there something you'd like? Okay, perfect. So it is around labor relations. We are currently in collective bargaining. And so it would, it's not appropriate. It would be more appropriate to be done in a private meeting.

I would challenge chair.

Okay. So, uh, secretary treasurer, do we need to read the, the motion title or just the fact that I've said, okay, wonderful. Uh, we have a challenge of the chair. I'm going to ask for a vote on sustaining the chair. All those.

Do you not need a seconder to sustain the chair? Thank you. Thank you.

Um, we have a challenge. Is there a seconder? Okay, we have a challenge. Okay, we'll go to a vote. It is not debated because it is not debated as per Robert's rules. So we'll go to a vote. I would challenge that ruling. Sure. So if it has to do with the agenda or confirming the agenda, Secretary Treasurer, would you please confirm?

Chair. Yes, Trustee. So I had indicated that I wanted a specific motion on discussing the living wage reinstatement, right? So that will be recorded in the minutes as a request, right? And then... the proceedings will be recorded in the minutes. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. The entire meeting is recorded. Those in favor of sustaining the chair.

Okay. Trustee Richardson, Chen, Freedcoat, Chen, Pedley and Fraser. Thank you. Those opposed. Okay. And I will abstain, but trustees Ma and ready opposed. Okay. So we'll move on to new business beginning with item 2.1.

We will ask now for an update on the 2026-27 financial plan engagement.

Thank you very much, Patricia, and thanks for all the work that you and your team did in this engagement process. Are there any questions from trustees at the table?

Wonderful. Thank you again for that.

Okay. Superintendent, do you have anything to add? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Next on the agenda, item 2.2, trustee motions. Okay, so these are all regarding the draft 2026-27 financial plan, and we have quite a few to consider. So I'd like to ask my fellow trustees to present their proposed motion, starting with Trustee Reddy.

Do I have a seconder? Trustee Ma, thank you. Trustee Redding, would you like to provide us with your rationale?

Thank you. Thank you, Trustee Reddy. I appreciate you bringing a motion around childcare. It's important to our city. Trustee Fraser.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Trustee Reddy, for bringing forward this motion. And I would like to propose an amendment.

Kate, thank you. Would you mind walking us through what we see on the screen?

So the amendment moves that the key pieces are that the VSB allocate up to $75,000. It's a limit, not a prescribed amount. And then what I think is really important is defining the licensed childcare that would be operated by the VSB to be high quality, inclusive, affordable, and cost neutral. And then below the, then with some of the crossing outs and added words, the intent is to focus the work on the feasibility study. And then if the feasibility study is positive, then consider additional work. And then finally to change the timeline from a very short timeline of reporting back in June and then mid September, to have the June update, and then for the study to be complete in the 26-27 school year. So that's a summary of the amendment.

Is there a seconder? Thank you, Trustee Chen-Pedley. Please provide us with your rationale. Okay, thank you.

And as we know, childcare is so important in this city. We have heard from many people during this budget engagement and from many people for years before that about the difficulties families have in securing childcare and then how expensive it can be even if you get a space and then how disruptive it is to family life. My frustration is that the requirement or the need is so high, my frustration is that Provincial government is downloading this responsibility onto school districts. We have for many years been fully part of the process to get capital funds from the province to update our school-based childcare. The last call for requests was in September 2024. We put in six requests and we do not yet know if they were successful or not. So it's difficult to move ahead when we're not getting the support from the province. And so if we're going to do this work ourself, then I think we need to be focused in because any money that goes towards childcare is coming out of the classroom. So we have to balance our responsibility as trustees, trustees for public education with what we're hearing from so many people across the city about the need for childcare and the ability to have childcare on school grounds to make life easier for families.

I believe we absolutely need to have high quality, inclusive, affordable childcare. That is what we should be offering, but it also should be cost neutral. So the costs of offering childcare should be recouped by the and if it is fees for the childcare, but also any monies put in by the province to make it affordable for families.

The feasibility work would set out what is possible within our district. And then I think if we know if something is feasible, then we could look at whether we can prioritize enrollment and... conduct surveys. We know from previous updates at the Facilities Planning Committee that even once you get capital funding for a child to create childcare spaces, it can take a year, maybe two, to actually get the license in place to be able to start operating. So there is a lot of time to continue to refine the work if we are intending to go ahead as a board. And speaking to the timeline, we want to do the work well. We want to make sure that the consultant who comes on board has the time to understand our district. To some extent, all districts are the same, and to some extent, all districts are different. I'm concerned that if we... get a final report in September, it might be that the ministry has not even by that time set the parameters for the newly announced funds that were announced in the budget, which were $5 million for capital funding and $20 million for operating. I'm not sure if that $20 million for operating is the money that we already, we as a district and all the other districts, across BC already received the $175,000 for the early, I maybe forget the acronym and not get it quite right, but early childcare grant.

So I don't know if the $20 million is already accounted for in that money, or if that is additional money. That is something we'll have to wait to hear from the province about. And I want to make sure that we're able to do the work with the information available to be able to actually make a decision. So I think a longer timeline in light of not having information from the province, in light of wanting to consult appropriately with employee groups, a lot of this work will be over the, a lot of the timeline originally proposed would be July, August, the beginning of September, which is not a good, an easy time to be consulting with employee groups. So I hope that trustees will support this amendment. I think it's important that we continue to push forward on out of school care spaces on school grounds. And again, it reflects my frustration that the province is not stepping in to do this work and instead downloading to school districts. Okay, thanks. Trustee Freecoat.

Thank you, Trustee Reddy for bringing this motion and thank you for the amendment, Trustee Fraser. I am in support of this amendment.

And one of the main reason is many families, both within our employee workforce and across the broader community, we've seen everyone facing the same type of challenges for childcare and they're struggling for affordable out of care. So by prioritizing this and, you know, having investing in the feasible study, we're not just committing to a program yet, but we're committing to the understanding of the need, the cost and the opportunities through the proper consultation and data that we need. This will also allow us to explore a model that is more inclusive.

Sorry to interrupt trustee. We're only speaking to the amendment right now. So if you want to just keep your, I am speaking to the amendment. Okay. And just so that if it's only the amendment, because you're able to speak to the entire motion after we, so just to the red that you see the changes.

Oh, okay. Okay. Okay.

Yeah.

And then, well, I think I've spoken. Well, I've spoken on the amendment. I think the timeline on this for June, 2026 facilities planning committee meeting is actually perfect. because September is when the school starts and we know how staff and everybody is overloaded with the startup of a school year. So I agree with this amendment.

Okay, any other comments on the amendment that we see?

A question to Trustee Fraser. You've crossed off the first dash as well as the fourth one down.

Can you explain why you've done that? So those pieces are incorporated in the additional work. So I think the key piece is to do the feasibility study first. If it's feasible for the district to offer this type of childcare, VSP operated childcare, then we should consider prioritized enrollment for VSB employees and a survey. But if it's not feasible for us to offer it, then that would be work that wouldn't be necessary until we know the answer. Thank you. Follow up, please.

Oh, your mic isn't on.

Sorry. So my question again is the fourth, one, two, three, four, the fourth dash down where it says applying an equity lens, that piece has been crossed off. And so I'm asking why that particular phrase was crossed off.

The intent was not to take out applying an equity lens, not to make it inequitable, but to be maybe a little more concise. I think we apply an equity lens in everything we do. So I'm... I'm confident that if we do this work, it will be within equity lens.

It is in our strategic plan. So I trust that that is being done. Trustee Ma, do you have a comment before, another one before we go to Trustee Richardson? Okay, I'll come back to you. Trustee Richardson.

Thank you, Chair. Speaking, I think there's no doubt that we all want increased access to before and after school. care. So I agree with these amendments from the point of view and the clarification that it's, I think somebody, the assumption is that it is inclusive and affordable because those are key items and to repeat them, although it may be in the school act, I'm not sure how many people refer to the school act when they're looking at what we're passing here as for. And I think it's the, it's just the timing of it. and to be realistic. I know we, the provincial government in your comments to your motion that the government has said that they're gonna provide additional funding. But if we look at screening that was K to three and we still are struggling with K. So I'm not too hopeful that we'll get entire funding to that they have promised the budget. So I think that the idea of waiting is useful. And I agree that the retention is something that we want to do as well. So I think I appreciate the purpose of the amendment is simply to proceed, but to in fact be a little bit more realistic in terms of what is possible for this very important efforts.

Thank you, Trustee Richardson. Would anyone who hasn't spoken yet like to speak? Okay, back to you, Trustee Moffitt.

Yes, I have an amendment to the amendment and I will give it to Flavia, please.

Thank you, Secretary Treasurer.

Okay, Trustee Ma, it is changed, I think, could it be a different color? It's bold and underlined, perfect. Trustee Ma, would you mind introducing your amendment to the amendment?

Thank you. Trustee Ma, would you mind turning your microphone on and introducing your amendment? I need to have a seconder to my amendment to the amendment. Sorry, does she not get to introduce her amendment? First, okay, okay. So what you see on the screen right now, for those who are asked to second it, if you could just look at it for a moment and then I'll ask for a seconder.

Okay, Trustee Reddy, thank you very much. Trustee Ma, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Yes, thank you. So I think what is important here is that if we are going to be using classroom spaces where teachers have their resources and materials in the classroom, we want to ensure that those materials and resources are safe and secure. I know that in some schools where there is before and after school childcare in classrooms and spaces where teachers use it during the day, there are lockable cabinets, there are lockable storage for those teachers to put away some of the things that they may not want disturbed or moved when you have other young people in that area. So I believe that we need to have that in there because I think it will help our staff feel more confident and secure.

Wonderful. Thank you. And please excuse me. I said, would you like to introduce your motion? What I meant to say was read it just for accessibility purposes in future, just to read the changes that we see in case anyone's listening and is not able to see what we see on the screen. Thank you very much, Trustee Ma. Please.

Okay, so under the second dash, at the end of that sentence or that line, I have added and ensuring that utilized classroom spaces contain safe and secure storage for teachers.

Thank you very much. Are there any comments on the amendment to the amendment that is bolded and underlined on the screen? Trustee Chen-Pedley.

Seeing no other comments. I wanted to support your amendment to the amendment as you, myself and trustee Fraser sat together and advocated for this in new builds at our BC school trustee association, AGM, It is important that we provide spaces where there is a safe locking place to lock up materials. So thank you. And I will support your amendment to the amendment. And would you like to say anything further before we go to a vote?

Yes, I have a question procedurally. So if this amendment to the amendment passes, then it becomes a part of this amendment. Correct. When we get to voting for the amendment, should that amendment fail, what would happen to the amendment to the amendment?

That would fail. The amendment to the amendment would fail and we would go back to the original motion without any amendments.

So chair, then if that were to be the case, would I be able to move an amendment again?

I am seeing a yes from our secretary treasurer procedurally. Yes, you would be able to.

I love asking skill testing questions.

Okay. Any other comments before we go to a vote? Okay. All those in favor of the amendment to the amendment that you see bolded and underlined on the screen. Okay. Unanimous support. Thank you, Trustee Ma. Now we'll go to the amended motion.

The amended amendment as amended.

Thank you. Okay, so as you can see, we have a motion with an amendment in red, with amendments in red. And so we'll go to anyone who would like to speak to the amended amendment that you see in red. Trustee Reddy.

Trustee Fraser, and then we'll go to Trustee Ma.

Thank you. And what I, In response to that, what was just raised, I would say that the feasibility study is the technical work to see what is possible. And the survey hasn't been removed, but it's been put after the feasibility study so that if we know we're able to do this, then we can survey to see where the work would be. So I don't think it's being lost. I do see that the... And coming back to another point about the anticipated impacts on recruitment and retention, I see that as another sequential step in the work. If we are able to prioritize enrollment for VSB employees, then we could look at the impacts of recruitment and retention. We can be efficient in the work we do in setting up each step to then go into the next steps. And I do have a question, Trustee Reddy. I think you said that the ministry's new funding, the way that that would be rolled out would be scoped in June. Is that, I haven't been able to find any information about the rollout. Is that something, I'm not sure of the wording you used when you said scoped by June.

So do we have, I just want to ask staff, do we have any indication from the ministry of when the guidelines and parameters would be available to school districts?

Superintendent?

If I may follow up on that. So the letter from MLA Sharma has already been referenced, but I could also highlight... that in the letter it says this program is in its early stages and more details will be made available as the initiative is rolled out. So I don't get that there's a sense of urgency in providing that information to school districts. So I want, I mean, I will be very happy if that information lands on our desk tomorrow and as soon as it arrives, then we can start working. But I just want to make sure that we are aligned and able to do the work in a thoughtful way.

Trustee Ma, I think you were next.

Thank you. So a feasibility study could include a survey. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I don't think they come one after the other, because how would you be able to determine if something is feasible unless you ask questions? And asking questions could be a survey. So I just... I don't think I can support it the way it is because I think it's too restrictive. I think a study is general and could include a study. It could include focus groups. It could be meeting with different stakeholders. It could be a whole myriad of things when you're talking about feasibility. So I find that it's just too restrictive.

Okay, are there any more comments on the amendment in red? Trustee Chen-Pedley.

Would anyone who has not spoke like to speak next? Okay. Trustee Richardson.

I'm suggesting that we vote for the amendments that are there. I think that the, one of the issues with this will be expectation management. I mean, frankly, if the survey says, would you like to have additional childcare spots? Of course the answer is yes. They've been waiting for years, but I think that we, that the idea is that we'll have further information once we're done the feasibility study. As for the amendment to the amendment in terms of ensuring classroom spaces contain safe and secure storage, I agree. I think this board was, or this district was criticized by some in Victoria as being the teachers not giving, or were not using enough classroom space opportunities. for private or not-for-profit daycare opportunities. So that's essential. But as we did it, I think, several months ago, is we asked that the Area Standards Document be amended to ensure that. So I think that these amendments are being realistic. And I think that we should proceed. And there's no doubt we all want this to work. But I think that given the... the lack of funding by the provincial government, but I'm now talking about the main motion. So I will stop and suggest we pass these amendments.

Okay. Thank you.

And Trustee Ma. I have a question through the chair. So this $75,000, would it all come out of operating or what?

Sorry, we're just talking about the amendment right now and we'll go back to, we're just talking about the red and then we'll come back to the

body of the motion after the amendment has been dealt with but my question is about the amendment because then this up to okay please go ahead thank you so does the money come out of capital operating or a blend sorry i'm just going to challenge you there it says up to you're asking now about

the trustee Fraser explained why she included the up to in her rationale for the amendment. And so now we're only debating what's in red and then where the money comes from will be a question for after the amendment has been dealt with.

But that may influence my vote on whether the amendment I vote in favor of the amendment or not.

Secretary Treasurer, would you mind weighing in on this? I would like to be as close to process as possible and want to respect the rules of Robert.

Okay, thank you. I would like to say that the amendment... before I ask Trustee Fraser her final thoughts, I just want to say that the amendment does take into account steps. And as we know, budget is very strained. And so asking the changes made in red address that why go to step two, if step one isn't doesn't allow for step two. So I am in support of the amendment and I'll ask Trustee Fraser to make any last comments before we go to a vote. Okay. Seeing none there, we'll go to a vote on the amendment. All those in favor. Trustee Richardson, Trustee Chen-Pedley, Trustee Fraser, and Trustee Young. Those opposed. Okay, we have Trustee Ma, Trustee Reddy, Trustee Chen, and those abstaining. Okay, Trustee Freedcoat.

So required to pass, we would need five, correct? Because we aren't abstaining.

Majority, okay, the abstention is fine. Okay, so the amendment passes. So we'll go to now the motion as amended.

Trustee Fricot? I have few questions in regards to the main motion now. So... Sorry, I missed the part where you said 75,000 could come out of the operating cost.

Sorry, do you have a question?

That's a question.

Okay, to Secretary Treasurer. Okay, Secretary Treasurer, a question around the 75,000, please.

Trustee Fricot, please continue. Sorry, just a follow-up. So what I'm understanding is just to do the work, just to get this report and the consultant fees and supplies, it's going to cost about 75, up to 75,000, where... one staff full-time position could be covered within that cost. Is that right? Secretary Treasurer?

Do you have any follow-up? No? Okay, Trustee Richardson, did I see your hand up?

Is there anyone who would like to speak?

We're speaking to the motion as amended that you see on the screen there.

You can go ahead if you'd like.

Fine. I am in favor of this motion as amended. I think it's realistic. It does address a very important need. My hesitation of this motion and the difficulty when I read the petition that was given to us by a member of the public, I think last week, I read, I think the title of it or the title of the motion is increasing out of care spaces and VSB recruitment and retention efforts. We as a board want more out of school care spaces. And wherever they come from, we would, and I think the public and the users of those would be happy. So the only reservation I have of this motion is that it's not encouraging and looking at why third party providers who are already providing all of our daycare spaces aren't providing more. And I think the previous discussion in terms of the amendment to the amendment is that there's been some hesitation to find spaces within our existing district that we can utilize. So I think this is an important motion, but I think that, and I'm certainly in favor of it because from whatever source we can find more spaces, because I believe parents are, many parents that I speak to are making decisions on where they want their child to enroll based upon the availability of out of school care. Um, and therefore, um, our dream or our, our, our former dream or our past practice of, of encouraging neighborhood schools is faltering because schools are going, uh, students are being placed out of their immediate catchment because of daycare. So if we can resolve that. So with those comments, which are really to say, let's cooperate, let's, um, um, look at this motion and move forward for success, but also try to expand existing needs. I do note that in the existing budget proposal that we have included an additional 1.0 FTE support staff to assist in the childcare efforts of the district. And that is just another opportunity to have a shot at the provincial government when they changed the name of the Ministry of Education and added childcare, they just didn't, it was in name only, there's not the adequate funding to allow us to manage the daycare we have and to encourage further improvements to it. And so I think that this board has responded to the fact that we want more daycare by providing the 1.0 FTE manager that is funded out of this, funding from the province. But we've gone beyond that. And this motion will go a further step towards providing the daycare out of school care that we are our parents are requesting. So I think this is a necessary motion.

But I guess the outstanding question is still what are we going to do? What is the appropriate funding source? And we may others may want to add where the money should be coming from to enable this worthy effort to proceed.

Thank you. I'd like to make an amendment to the motion as amended on the screen. I'm not sure if procedurally I should ask Vice Chair Fraser to take over. Would you mind? Just so that we're... Sure.

I can take over and ask you to provide the Secretary-Treasurer with your amendment.

So I'll just read out. My amendment is to ask for the Ministry of Education and Child Care for this up to $75,000.

Sorry, we're just waiting for it to come up on the screen and it's there. Okay, so move the amended motion is being further amended. Moved by Trustee Young and seconded by Trustee Freecoat. So speaking to this amendment, Trustee Young.

Thank you. Our responsibility and mandate is for K-12 education. the downloading of responsibility from our provincial government and MLAs who are representatives in Vancouver, who understand the needs of their community. I understand where their heart is. However, they hold the purse strings and they consistently ask for us to take responsibility for things that we are not mandated to do. And I really wanted to support everything around this table and my colleagues. And I just couldn't bear to be asked for us to take K to 12 education funds as trustee Freedcoat mentioned, that could be an assistant in a classroom for a year to spend on something that the ministry should be doing or providing funds to do. I am super grateful for MLA Sharma because this shouldn't be a hard decision for her. to take to her government and to ask for support from her colleagues, especially the ones that represent our city and understand the needs of the community. And so that is why I'm asking for support for the amendment that you see on the screen.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak to this? Trustee Chen, Trustee Richardson, and then Trustee Champedly.

Just a clarify question. So means if ministry is not providing funding, we are not doing this feasible study?

Trustee Young?

We are going to ask, yes. The intention is that we do not spend K-12 education money on a feasibility study as we do get information very similar to that from our staff reported to us twice a year.

No follow-up. Okay. Trustee Richardson.

I appreciate that we want the Ministry of Education and Child Care to pay for this.

I guess I must remember about a year ago, We received a whole lot of pressure. There were meetings between the premier and some students to encourage that AEDs be introduced in our schools. This board voted, realizing we need to fund a motion. We can't just say we want to do something, but we have to say where the money's coming from. We said it was going to come out of local capital, which we don't have a lot of. The fact that it probably comes out of the... Lord Roberts annex budget. We kind of soft peddled. We paid for them because we wanted them in the school by September 1st. And we needed to be able to pay for them or to identify a source before we could proceed. And the ministry was giving lots of thoughts that they would encourage that. And then they came back and said, but we're not going to fund you. So I don't hold a lot of hope that the ministry will provide this funding. And I think this project is too important to not proceed. I guess I'm back to where my dilemma was before when I spoke a few moments ago is how do we afford to pay for this out of our existing budget so that we can proceed? Because frankly, we may be waiting a long time for the, although they could give us the money tomorrow, but I'm not willing to take that chance. So I'm going to vote against the amendment.

Thank you, trustee Richardson, trustee Jan Petley.

Trustee Freecoat. Thank you, Chair. I am actually in support of this amendment. I was really hesitating to spend 75K on a feasibility study where we could be actually allocating a full-time staff a support staff that's needed every single day in schools. Given that this work aligns with the Ministry of Childcare, Education and Childcare, it's appropriate body to fund this feasibility work. It's just a report, again, another survey that we're spending up to 75 K for at the time where we're making such a difficult decision on budget and everything where it's impacting the students in the classroom. It's important that the education funding remain focused on direct services to the students and not on some type of study where I think the ministry of education and childcare is responsible for. So I'm in support of this.

Trustee Ma?

Can I try? Okay, I'm going to...

This is what I'm going to do. I'm going to speak in opposition of the amendment to the motion because I believe that the time is now. I don't think we can wait... to get funding to do this. You know, in the last four years, we have heard from the public and from parents that they need childcare space. They need before and after school space. We just received a letter with a thousand signatures on it at every venue that I go to when I talk to parents who have young children and to grandparents. they talk about the importance of childcare, before and after school childcare. And I believe that if we wait to get this money, the answer will probably be no.

Meanwhile, another year goes by, another two years goes by. And I think we need to move on this. I think in order for us to have the study done, It will inform us in terms of how to move forward with this. And the new board in the fall will have to make some decisions. And that's why I am not in favor of this amendment.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this amendment? Trustee Young, would you like to?

Thank you. I do want to thank everyone at the table because this is Vancouver school board consistently shows leadership in ways like we heard trustee Richardson mention where we follow Vancouver coastal health requirements, yet we get mandated to do something that we do not get funds for. And so it is something we fought for and we were denied. And so I appreciate that we still have that commitment, and that we can still sit around the table and talk about how this is ridiculous that we're consistently asked to do things that are not in our mandate. So I just appreciate you all. These are hard decisions and it's very frustrating.

So then we can move to the vote on this amendment. So all those in favor? Trustee Young, Trustee Freecoat and Trustee Chen and those against? Trustee Reddy, Trustee Richardson, Trustee Ma, myself, and Trustee Champedley. So the amendment does not pass. And I will hand the chair back to you, Trustee Young. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, Chair.

Yes. Point of personal privilege. Yes. Five-minute recess, please. Yes, we absolutely can take a break. We're going to take a quick break so that everyone can do their business. We'll return in, I'm going to give 10 minutes, 11, so we can be right on at 6.15. We'll see you back in here at 6.15. Thank you.

Wonderful, thank you. Okay, thanks everyone for accommodating our recess. And we will now go back to what we see on the screen, which is a discussion on the motion as amended that we see up on the screens here. Any comments of Trustee Freedcoat and then Trustee Frazier and then Trustee Ma?

I have a question, Chair. if any of the staff would like to answer, has any of this study has been done in the past or anything that was proposed in regards to out-of-school childcare spaces, or have we received any information from Ministry of Education and Childcare in regards to this?

Okay, I'm going to look to staff. Secretary-Treasurer Coughlin.

Do you have a follow up on that?

Go ahead.

So we, from what I understand, so we do have a data about childcare, how many spaces we need for childcare. So doing this study, it's kind of like a repetition of what has already been done.

Any other follow-up?

Okay. Trustee Fraser. Thank you, Chair. And I'd like to make an amendment for where the money would come from and add that it would be from operating contingency.

Is there a seconder? Thank you, Trustee Chen-Pedley. Trustee Fraser.

I think because this is, so the motion under consideration is to spend up to $75,000 on a one-time basis. And I think because it's a one-time basis, the best place to come from is the operating contingency. If this motion passes, there was always the intent to have an update in June. So that seems to indicate that the work would start this year. So in a sense, it's not part of the 26-27 budget as the work's already starting. I don't want to displace any employees for this work. I am anxious that if we as a district start putting money into childcare, then that might be the start of a slippery slope. And while I can... I can live with one time 75,000 to the intent is get things moving. I would be anxious about any additional spending, but I think taking it from on a one-time basis from operating contingency is the best situation for where we're at.

Question to staff on our contingency and if we meet and will continue to meet policy requirements around that.

Thank you. Questions or comments? Not seeing any, we'll go to voting on the amendment that we see in red. Those in favor?

Trustee Ma, Trustee Richardson, Trustee Reddy, Trustee Champedley, Trustee Fraser, Trustee Young. Those opposed? Trustee Chen and Trustee Freedcoat. Okay, that amendment has been supported and will now be written in. As we see right now on the screen, it is the Motion as amended a few times. Trustee Ma. I have another amendment to this. Wonderful. Would you mind just reading or giving us the words of your amendment? I have given it.

So I would move to insert this at the end of this motion. the wording would be that upon completion of this feasibility study, we ask the MECC to fund the VSB with the cost born from the feasibility study.

Thank you, and we'll just wait to see it up before we ask for a seconder. Trustee Ma, your microphone is still on. Thank you.

Trustee Ma, does this look the way that you'd like? Yeah. Wonderful. Is there a seconder?

Trustee Richardson. Thank you. Trustee Ma, would you like to introduce?

We just had a long discussion before the break about, you know, that the ministry needs to show us support. And so I think that this is one way that we can do it. We can request. I mean, I'm not holding my breath, but I think that, We need to be seen as doing that. And I am comfortable with this now because it does not hold up the study.

Trustee Chen.

Question. So from the previous discussion that I assume everyone's feel that the ministry is not supporting this. So what happened? Like we spend money from the operating contingency, which already have a hole on it. and we have a bigger hole for spending another 75,000 and then ministry is not supporting it and not giving us money. Then we still have to find money to fulfill the operating contingency from the hole, right?

Any other comments?

Trustee Fraser. I'm in support of the amendment. I wonder about using the word we. Is that clear that it's the board or do we need to be specific? I guess I'm asking Secretary Treasurer.

Okay. Trustee Ma?

I think that's a fine idea if we have unanimous consent to change it.

I'm seeing anyone in opposition of that. Okay. A friendly amendment or a friendly change. Thank you.

Wonderful. Okay. Any other comments? Trustee Freecoat.

I feel this is what I would support for sure. Cause. the cost we should not be incurring the cost of what's not our job. Um, and it should fall back on the ministry. So thank you for this amendment and I'll support it for sure.

Okay. Seeing no other comments. Okay. Trustee ready?

Trustee Richardson.

I think it would be fair to say that this is an aspirational provision. Your daughter will see pink unicorns before this happens. But I think the intent is that we are not being silent any longer and that we just want to remind that when you change the name of the ministry and add childcare, there are some responsibilities to go along with it.

Okay. And I support this amendment, but I'm frustrated that we wouldn't ask first and see what they say and then make a decision. And that now we're just making the decision to spend K to 12 educational funds on something that we are not mandated to do. And then asking for the money later, we saw in previous history, how that worked out for the board and the district. And so I do just want to remind everyone around the table what happened with some other initiatives that we took. But again, I am supporting this because I think Vancouver School District has showed incredible leadership in a lot of these challenges and challenging times. And so, I'll support this amendment. All those in favor? Trustee Ma, Trustee Richardson, Trustee Freedcoat, Chen Pedley, Fraser and Young. Those opposed? Trustee Reddy and Trustee Chen. Okay, so the amendment carries. And so now we're looking at the motion with many amendments passed on the screen. Are there any further comments or amendments before we move on to the vote?

Okay. Thank you for the fabulous debate tonight. Oh, trustee ready. Can I close?

Those in favor. Trustee Ma, Richardson, Reddy, Freedcoat, Chen-Pedley, Fraser and Young. Those opposed. Trustee Chen. Okay, the motion carries. We'll move to the next motion on the board. And I'm going to ask Trustee Fraser to introduce. And for those following along on the agenda, it is item 2.2.2.

Thank you, Chair. And I'd like to move that the board direct the superintendent to develop a learning technology and information systems plan for trustees consideration of part of the 2027-2028 financial planning process. Do I have a seconder?

Trustee Richardson, Trustee Fraser.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. And it's been a long budget process. And in the financial plan, the risks, some of the risks were, well, there are many, many risks in the districts. And, you know, many, we've already spoken about how many of the risks are because of the expectations that are put on the district, yet the resources are not provided so that we can do the work. We have a continuing expansion of the digital world in which students live and they sometimes study and they communicate. We have continuing expansion of the way and changes in way district staff are doing their work. to be more efficient, to put more things online. And we need to make sure that the systems we have in place are effective. They work for the students and the staff and that they are safe so that we have the data that we hold is secure. We have also heard from several of the stakeholders about access to digital technology. and about the use of AI in classrooms and in preparation of work in the district. There are many aspects that are woven together. So I did ask staff about the best wording, and I think you end up with a learning technology and information systems plan, which is a little bit of a word salad, but I think it's broad enough to cover all the pieces that were picked up in the The risks picked up in the delegation submissions from the stakeholders and also touched on in the engagement summary in the many, many items that people shared their priorities for. So I hope that this work, which is not, it's not a financial ask of the budget, but it's definitely an ask of staff in the district. So it is a resource of time. but I do think it will help trustees in the next budget cycle to have a good understanding of, a better understanding of the risks and how to mitigate them.

Comments from trustees?

Questions? Trustee Friedkopf. Question to Trustee Fraser. Is there a cost associated with this?

There's not a dollar amount, but it is staff time.

Okay, seeing no other comments, we'll go to, okay, we do have a comment, Trustee Ma.

A question through the chair to the mover. This motion says a plan. Is this a long-term, short-term, or does it encompass both short-term and long-term?

Okay, we'll ask Trustee Fraser to comment. I think both. When we do the financial planning processes for a period of three years, so at least for a three-year period, but I anticipate some parts of the timeline will be contemplated as being part of a longer timeline. But then also there might be immediate allocation of funding in the one year, so both short-term and long-term. Do you have a follow-up?

Go ahead. Can I speak on the motion now? Ask my question? Thanks. So I think this is really important, and I would hope that when the superintendent does look at staff to develop this plan, that we take the short-term and the long-term in consideration, and probably like a multi-step as well in terms of different aspects. I think the question about the use of AI, we really do need to... look at the implication of using a co-pilot. We need to look at how all of this technology also factors into our climate sustainability plan as well. And I would hope that it's quite a broad and comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Question to the mover around how this work is done. Does it go to committee for feedback? Is there any other directives or will that be up to the superintendent?

My expectation is that it would be part of the committee system, but. Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments that we see? Okay. Trustee ready. And I just want to remind trustees, we have a big agenda tonight. So if you do have questions or comments to try and be quick as we so that we can move things along as to not waste anyone's time. Trustee Reddy, go ahead.

Thank you. I don't see any other hands, so we will now go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the screen? Okay, it passes unanimously. Thank you. Moving to our next motion, and thank you all for being quick and prepared. 2.2.3, Trustee Ma, would you please introduce your motion?

Thank you. I would move that the board amend the 2026-2027 draft financial plan and budget to add up to 300 additional hours of supervision aid staffing for the 2026-2027 school year.

Is there a seconder? Trustee Reddy? Trustee Ma, please introduce your rationale.

Yeah, so... Last year, the board offered to increase supervision aides on a voluntary basis who wanted to take on extra hours, up to one and a half hours. And that happened from spring break, I think, until the end of June. And what it allowed to happen was that schools who were using, having IEP meetings, end of the year meetings, planning for the following school year, would be able to release classroom teachers and have supervision aides go into our schools to provide relief time. And again, that was on a voluntary basis. So that's why my motion says up to 300. It may not be 300, but I think that this is a small amount to pay. I also understand that there was a costing that was given to trustees today. Secretary, Treasurer, can I just... ask you to confirm the cost?

Are there, sorry, did you, are you finished? Okay. Going to any, okay, we'll go to Trustee Reddy and then Trustee Freedcoat.

Trustee Freedcoat and then Trustee Champedly. Thank you. So the $9,000 cost is for a year, right?

Sorry, are you asking the mover or are you asking the Secretary Treasurer? I am asking Secretary Treasurer.

Thank you. Do you have a follow-up Trustee Friedko? Okay. I'll go to Trustee Chen-Pedley.

Is that a question for the mover?

Question to the mover. My understanding was that the additional hours was from spring break till the end of June and it was one time. It ended at the end of June. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no...

Yes, Trustee Fraser. A question to the mover. Is this intended? I see that the, it says for the 26, 27 school year. So I'm assuming that is also a one-time cost. Yes. Okay.

Are there any other questions or comments before we move to the next item, which is the vote? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of what you see on the screen?

Trustee Ma, Trustee Richardson, Trustee Reddy, Trustee Freedcoat, Trustee Chen-Pedley, Trustee Fraser. Those opposed? Okay, Trustee Chen and Trustee Young.

I'd like to move a motion that we, direct staff to find out where to take this money from because it was not in the motion and it contradicts our policy, which is why I voted against and why we're required to have a balanced budget. So I'm going to put it back on the table and I apologize because I should have caught that, but all of the motions we bring tonight because The amended budget is balanced. So all of the motions brought by trustees are required to say where the money is coming from. And as we heard earlier, we have very limited contingency funds. So we're gonna have to make a motion. Thank you, secretary, treasurer. And I will ask that you help in creating that motion to address where it's from.

Trustee Richardson.

Seconder to that motion.

Thank you, Trustee Richardson. As soon as our secretary treasurer gets it up on the board, we will speak to it.

Trustee Richardson, would you mind turning your microphone off, please? And I'm going to ask the trustees around the board table, actually, if you do have a motion coming up in the package that you make note of it in your rationale or in the body of the motion that we know where it's coming from so we can discuss when it comes up.

Okay, I move that the Board approve the allocation of $9,200 from operating contingency to fund the additional 300 hours of supervision aid staffing. It was seconded by Trustee Richardson. Thank you. Any comments or discussion before we go to a vote? Okay, all those in favor? Okay, Trustee Ma, Richardson, Reddy, Friedko, Chen, Pedley, Fraser and Young. Those opposed? Trustee Chen. Thank you for that housekeeping error on my part. I appreciate... your help on getting through to that, getting through that. So we'll now move to our next motion on the agenda. Item 2.2.4, and I will ask Trustee Ma to read the motion.

Yes, thank you, Chair. So this motion is that I move that the board amend the 2026-2027 draft financial plan and budget to reinstate 3.0 FTE SSB staffing for the 2026, 2027 school year. And I think I have to add the STEM and that the board similar to the motion that just passed the second motion that just passed where it's coming out of contingency.

You can just add it as of. as a friendly courtesy, we don't mind if you just want. Ah, perfect, okay. Flavia, you are- And that, and that.

And hat.

We'll just update it with the right dollar value. And then in the meantime, as we all have the information we've provided to trustees, is there a seconder for this motion? Trustee Reddy, thank you.

Thank you to staff for rolling with us as we make amendments on the fly. I appreciate it. And we'll ask Trustee Ma. It has been seconded by Trustee Reddy. Would you excuse me, trustees?

We have a lot to do tonight. Thank you very much. Trustee Ma, go ahead and introduce your motion.

Thank you. So at the April 13th, 2026 special board committee meeting of the whole meeting, The Vancouver District Students Council reps spoke about the importance of supporting student mental health in our secondary schools. They surveyed students and survey results showed that students identified youth workers as playing important roles in supporting student mental health. Recently, at the City of Vancouver's Children, Youth and Family Advisory Committee, serving as the VSB's liaison trustee to this committee, City of Vancouver staff showed a report from their Building Safer Communities recent survey, where they surveyed over 400 youth, asking them about what would improve their quality of life. Mental health support was stated as critically needed, and the survey showed that student mental health continues to decline in our city. In last year's budget, we reallocated nine FTE from the Safe and Caring Schools program to fund more SSAs. Some of the nine FTE were SSB positions. Student support worker Bs or SSBs work with our at-risk youth who need additional support and in areas of social, emotional learning, behavior, mental health, and or learning difficulties. The draft 2026-27 financial plan proposes a 3.0 FTE cut to SSB staffing and states that these cuts will affect Britannia and David Thompson. If this staff is not needed specifically for these two programs, the SSB positions could be redeployed elsewhere to other schools where they can continue to support our at-risk youth. Indicators show that the need for mental health supports have not gone down, so cutting this valuable staffing will negatively impact vulnerable youth. And I would also like to say that we know that time and time again, we hear about mental health as one of the key goals. Well, mental... wellbeing is one of the key goals of our education plan. And yet when we cut SSB service, these personnel that work with youth, with health and mental health, social challenges, behavioral challenges, we are doing a disservice to some of our most needy students in our district. So we need to reverse this. We need to find the money. We can redeploy these people. We need, to have these people on the ground working with our youth.

Okay. Trustee Freedcoat and then Trustee Fraser.

Thank you, Chair. I am in support of this motion. I think the data... and the voices of the students are very clear. Mental health issues are increasing day after day, and we need more staff that works with the students in the schools every single day. Cutting these type of services is not benefiting anyone. It's just increased more issues in our community. And so I would support that whereas staffing is actually required, we should, we should be deploying more staff over there. So overall, this motion reflects what the students are telling us. They need consistent and accessible mental health support in our schools. So I will be supporting this. Thank you.

Trustee Fraser.

Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate we're having this discussion and there are so many needs in the district. If you look at the engagement summary report, pretty much anything we spend money on, we could spend more money on. I appreciate the work that staff did in this part of the financial plan, which is the enrollment-driven changes in staffing. So while there will be three fewer SSB support staff, there will be three additional SSA staff. And I know it's not easy to... make changes, but I appreciate that the intent is to meet the, the intent is to reallocate the staffing positions based on enrollment to where the need is the greatest. So I will not be supporting this motion.

Any further comments before we go to a vote?

Okay, Trustee Ma, you can close and then we'll go to a vote.

Thank you, Chair. So a comment just to say that SSAs are not the same as SSBs. SSBs are in a different category unto themselves where they work specifically with at-risk youth and SSAs predominantly do not work in our secondary schools. So again, I really strongly urge you to support this. Our youth deserve it. and they need it, and we need to do this.

All those in favor? Trustee Ma, Reddy, and Freedcoat. Those opposed? Trustee Richardson, Chen, Chen, Pedley, Fraser, and Young. The motion is defeated. We'll go to item 2.2.5, and I'll go back to Trustee Ma.

I would move that the VSB 2026-2027 budget fund the provision of teachers on call to replace absent resource teachers on their first day of absence and that this funding will come from a reduction in the divisional superintendent and divisional superintendent office budgets and other areas in the budget that do not affect direct instruction to students.

Is there a seconder? Trustee Reddy? Trustee Ma?

This one is really near and dear to me because I was a resource teacher many, many years ago. And I remember when this policy was implemented where I would not be replaced until three days of being away from school. I worked with students with a lot of needs, challenges, and when I was away, there was nobody to replace me and those students did not receive support. This has been going on now in Vancouver for over 10 years, maybe actually 20 years. And I just think about how many hours of instruction of special support students with diverse learning needs have not received. When we don't spend this money and we put this money elsewhere in our system, students suffer. Students don't catch up.

And resource teachers are critical in our schools. They are the ones that do all our IEPs. They coordinate meetings with parents, with other staff members, with SSAs that work in the school, with the administrators that work in the school. These teachers are critically needed. to support students with needs.

So my concern is we have been not spending this money for years and years. And I think that this motion, thank you to Trustee Reddy. I believe that Trustee Reddy brought this motion a year or two ago. And I think that other trustees before our board took office also brought this motion. these motions forward. So we need to take a stand. I know that in our draft financial plan on page 63 of 68, there's a statement that says a TTOC would not be able to replicate this targeted support on a casual basis. We cannot use this rationale to continue with the non-replacement policy as we're basically saying to the public, we're saying to students, we're saying to parents and families, that we would rather not provide a needed service to students and that their program basically stops for a day or two before their service is replaced. And we do, everybody that we hire are qualified teachers who can provide service, who are certificated teachers. And as a trustee, I believe in their ability to do this.

Are there any comments, Trustee Freecoat? Thank you, Chair. I have a question, actually. Does the resource teacher, from what my understanding is, that they meet with the students on, like, not daily basis, but on a case-by-case situation. So is that true? Or does the resource teachers, if they're absent, they need replacement right away because that's affecting the students So can you can you answer that please. ELLIE WILSON- Sure. I'll ask Allison Ogden.

Do you have a follow-up? Go ahead.

Thank you. So if a teacher is absent, a resource teacher is absent and there is a TTOC in place for that, they won't have the full information of those particular cases for those students. Is that correct?

Trustee Chen.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Trustee Ma, to bring this up. Very important. Just want to get clarified. For the areas in a project that do not affect direct instruction to students, can Josima propose maybe which area of the project can be used, for example?

I think that work would be done by the Secretary-Treasurer to find these areas. It's really hard when we look at the budget, the way that it's structured, to find out where there are bits and pieces and where the spending comes out of. So for example, for... supporting inclusion, there would be administrative costs that come out of that budget, right? There would be teachers that come out of that budget. There would be resource teachers that come out of that budget. So it's really hard to say this line item, again, the line items that we have been given in the schedules are, they combine a lot of different things. So... I don't, unless we had what's called a divisional budget, which shows line by line where everything is being spent, for example, like toilet paper, like pens and pencils, like all of that stuff, we wouldn't know. I mean, like I wouldn't know because I've never seen a very detailed divisional budget, a line by line item budget. So not having that, I would have to rely on the expertise of the secretary treasurer to find other areas of cost savings.

Just a point of clarification. When you worked with staff on this motion, did they give you other areas or did they provide any? Sorry, would you mind speaking to your microphone?

No, they did not.

Okay. Trustee Freedcoat.

Thank you, Chair. So I'm looking at the cost. It's actually $2.6 million. that needs to be covered from what I understand from Alison, that even though there's a TTOC for a resource teacher replacement, they still wouldn't have access to the case for those students. And it would take them time to even understand what the job is. So I don't know where the budget 2.6 million is gonna come from the superintendent office. And also I think it's not directly affecting the students in the class. It is on the case by case, which is individual education plan, IEP. So I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you. Trustee Richardson.

Chair, I will not be supporting this motion, although I believe last year or the year before, I believe Trustee Reddy did bring this similar motion forward and the same information was brought to our attention that frankly, although a teacher's a teacher's a teacher, this work of a resource teacher is very specialized and it's unique to a child. And I think there, I mean, I'm pain, and this was the basis of the thesis that a group of us completed a year ago, the importance of identifying and then dealing with and supporting a student that's struggling. But I would vote against, I'm intending to vote against this. I'm not diminishing the need to support those children. The suggestion that... They don't need support, they certainly do. But I would hope that we could look at maybe a staffing approach that would have a team approach that there is more than one resource teacher that would in fact be familiar. There may be a primary and a secondary contact for a student so that in fact there would be that opportunity to provide support. But at this point, simply substituting a teacher in day one and day two. It's unfortunate and it is something that we should address. But I don't think at this point that this would be a use of an additional 2.6 million against our budget would be appropriate use of funding. But we should look to address this as best we can. And I know we've been struggling with it. for many years, thank you.

Are there any other comments before we close? Trustee Richardson.

I just want to clarify, maybe Steph could clarify. The suggestion was that we don't replace after three days. My understanding is we replace after two days. Is that not the case? And I appreciate that one day is too long.

We can clarify. Alison Ogden, would you mind commenting?

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments before we move to close? Okay. I just want to make a quick comment in regards to something a trustee just said about the capabilities of our TTOCs. And we hire absolutely incredible educators in this district. And whether they are showing up As a regular teacher or a TTOC, I want to just say how much I support their work and that they are fully capable and incredible humans who are doing great work. And so to suggest that they are not providing adequate educational services because they're showing up as a teacher on call, I completely disagree with. And I felt it necessary to just say that they're doing great work and I support them. Trustee Ma, would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair. We have the opportunity to reverse years and years of non-support.

When we talk about resource teachers, they don't just work one-on-one. Some resource teachers go into the classroom and support other students as well as the students that need extra support. And in doing so, they support not only the classroom teacher, but the SSAs that are also in that classroom working with all children. So wouldn't it be wonderful if we had more qualified teachers and qualified SSAs who do remarkable work in our classrooms to support not just the students with diverse learning needs, but all students in our classes.

As a point of procedure, I'm going to ask that we make an amendment to include the dollar value as I missed that previously. And I appreciate your patience. So I'm going to ask the secretary treasurer to add that into the motion that we currently see on the screen to accommodate for the budget allocation. And I'm looking to see if there's a seconder who would support me.

Okay, if there's no objection, it's approved by consensus. Thank you. That's a better way to do it.

Thank you. Okay, so the motion reads... that the VSB 2026-27 budget fund the provision of teachers on call to replace absent resource teachers on their first day of absence. And that this funding of 2.697552 million will come from a reduction in the divisional superintendent and divisional superintendent office budgets and other areas in the budget that do not affect direct instruction to students. Okay. Seeing no other comments, we're going to go to a vote. All those in favor?

Trustee Ma and Trustee Reddy, those opposed? Trustees Richardson, Chan, Freedcoat, Chan, Pedley, Fraser and Young. Okay, the motion is defeated and we'll go to agenda item 2.2.6. Trustee Ma, will you please read your motion?

Chair, I think this one needs to include the... Thank you.

Thank you, staff. You are quick. We appreciate you very much. Kate, would you mind reading your...

Yes, thank you, Chair. So I would move that the board amend the 2026-2027 draft financial plan and budget to reinstate 1.0 FTE teacher of the visually impaired staffing and 1.0 FTE hospital homebound teacher staffing for the 2026-2027 school year and that the board approve the allocation of 280,778 from the operating contingency to fund the additional 2.0 FTE teacher staffing.

Is there a seconder? Trustee Reddy, Trustee Ma, please give us your rationale.

All right, so the decrease of the 1.0 FTE visually impaired teacher who works at the district level will result in leaving two teachers to provide service to the entire district. This service is highly specialized and it will be extremely difficult to recruit this position in the future should support needs increase. The position took a whole year to fill and this indicates that the scarcity of these types of teaching professionals in BC. The teacher of the visually impaired not only directly support students with just visual impairments, but works with other school staff and parents to ensure that the student programs are met with continuity without specialized support. In addition, if service needs go up due to newly designated visually impaired students, it's doubtful that we would be able to find a TTOC to temporarily help with the increased workload. So this is sort of mirroring what the last rationale with, you know, like we have people in our district that provide highly specialized service, it's extremely difficult to find these people and it's also difficult to retain these people. And so if we lose this visually impaired, visually impaired teacher, that doesn't sound right, does it? Teacher of the visually impaired, that would have a detrimental effect on the students that need the support. The second part of this is the decrease of 1.0 FTE to the hospital homebound teacher, which would leave one teacher for the entire district to support students who are ill, who may be in a hospital, who may be too ill to attend, physically attend school or mentally to attend school. And I know that in the draft budget, there was an explanation that maybe VLN, the Vancouver Learning Network Program, would provide this service. They are an online school and some of the students that would be needing this hospital homebound service may not even be able to sit up and access a laptop or use technology to access their coursework. To leave the district with one teacher to service both elementary and secondary would lead to an overall teacher workload and also possibly compromising the type of service that we provide to these extremely vulnerable. I mean, I think that's sort of the mantra or the theme of this budget is we are negatively affecting the most vulnerable students in our district. We need to stop doing this.

May I ask a question to staff with regard to if there has been a decline in why this move was made to have this motion be brought to the board? Alison Ogden, thank you.

Thank you for that. Are there any questions from trustees? I see Trustee Freedcoat, Trustee Fraser, and then, okay, we'll go to you first, Trustee Freedcoat.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. I have a question to the staff that we had 14 students and we had two full-time hospital homebound teacher allocated for that. If we're reducing one, would that not, or impact the services that we're providing to these students?

Trustee Fraser, you're up next.

Thank you. My question's been answered.

Wonderful. We'll go to Trustee Reddy next.

Okay, seeing no other hands up, I'll make a quick comment. I think we need to live in a reality and make choices in reality. And if we don't have a lot of funds to do, to provide adequate services, then we shouldn't be spending it on services that we don't have students for. So I will not be supporting this as we just heard from staff that all students are being accommodated and provided with adequate resourcing for what we've heard. I'm going to ask that it be closed now and then go to a vote.

Thank you. I think it's important to recognize that these positions, particularly the teacher of the visually impaired is a highly specialized position. The board always has the option if there is a teacher for a particular program or a school for that matter, if they are not needed, that they could be reassigned. And I am very concerned that if we whittle it down from three to two, that we will lose that person. And we may not be able to find that a person to fulfill that role for a very long time.

All those in favor. Trustee Ma, Trustee Reddy, Trustee Freedcoat, those opposed. Trustees Richardson, Chen, Chan-Pedley, Fraser and Young. The motion is defeated. We'll move to our next motion tonight. We have 2.2.7.

And we are going to ask Trustee Ma to read her motion.

Thank you very much. I would move that the board amend the 2020-26-2027 draft financial plan and budget to reinstate the 1.0 FTE district teacher librarian staffing for the 2026-2027 school year and that the board approved the allocation of 140,389 from operating contingency to fund the additional 1.0 FTE teacher staffing. Is there a seconder?

Trustee Friedcoat, thank you. Trustee Ma, please motivate.

I will motivate for sure. Okay, so currently there's only one person that's working to liaise with all the elementary teachers and secondary school teacher librarians. We, at the public delegation meeting on April 15th, we heard from two delegates that spoke about the importance of our school libraries. It might be noted that out there in our district, there are many schools, elementary schools, that do not have full-time teacher librarians. Some of our schools do, which is fantastic. And we know that the board is committed to literacy. and literacy comes with being able to access libraries in our district. And when you have over a hundred and some odd sites with school libraries, and there's nobody at the board level to coordinate professional development in service, options to go and work with new teacher librarians, options to develop workshops on specific topics, for example, like indigenous education or inclusive education, or working with looking at collections, helping school teacher librarians look at collections. We need somebody at the district level to support that work. And so that's why I am moving this motion.

May I ask a question to staff? We've seen a reduction and I did some clarification on how we are planning to support without the one FTE that is mentioned in the motion.

Maureen McCray Stanger, please.

Thanks for that info.

Trustee Freedcoat.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Trustee Ma, for bringing this motion. I am in support of this motion. I have worked very closely with the district teacher librarians and know how much work they do behind the scene and how their position affects the librarian or the students in the school on a district level, actually. they have a very wide type of impact on schools, supporting professional learning, resources sharing, and making sure there is a consistency and equity in all the libraries. So cutting this one full-time position will have a big impact on the district and I would, I would support this motion to actually retain this librarian. Thank you.

May I ask Maureen, just a quick question, something that Trustee Reddy just said around having access to a librarian or having someone with the resourcing at a school. Are you able to just comment on that? And as a one FTE district teacher librarian, will that affect a student who is looking for the resourcing as mentioned in their school and will they still have access to help in schools?

Thank you. And to clarify, so you're saying that other teachers will be trained to provide the services, there just will be one reduced FTE at a district level, but those supports will still be there?

Thank you very much for that clarification. Trustee Friedko.

I have a question and then maybe a comment after. So a district teacher librarian, how many do we have in the district right now?

Okay, sorry, a follow-up. So thank you, Chair. So the one district teacher librarian position that we have is the one that we're cutting right now?

OK.

Thank you. One more. Sorry. OK. So there is a lot of, I don't know if anybody knows, there is a lot of different type of software that the teacher librarian use in the libraries to check out the books. And there's a lot of resources that they have to collect on a regular basis to pass it to the teachers This position, if we only have one district teacher librarian and we're cutting that position, I think we're doing a very big mistake. These are very specialized, skilled teachers, and they're very critical to... the educational that we provide in the school. Cutting this position, it is gonna affect, I would say not directly, but like indirectly, it's like a triple down effect and it is gonna affect the school. I don't think cutting a position is a good choice at this moment.

Seeing no other hands up, we'll go to Closing of the motion, if you would like. No, okay. Thank you very much. We'll go to a vote. All those in favor. Trustees Ma, Reddy, Chen, and Freedcoat. Those opposed? Richardson, Chen, Pedley, Fraser, and Young. The motion is defeated. We'll move to our next motion. And I will ask Trustee Ma to read 2.2.8 agenda motion.

Thank you, Chair.

I would move that the board amend the 2026-2027 draft financial plan and budget to reflect the full 325,000 City of Vancouver food grant for the 2026-27 school year as soon as the grant is confirmed by the City of Vancouver.

Is there a seconder? Trustee Reddy. I also want to do a quick check with everyone. How are you doing? Does anyone need a moment for a break? Okay. Just wanted to confirm. Okay, now that we've, I meant to do that before we moved the motion, but I just want to check in with you guys, okay? Trustee Ma, please motivate your motion.

We're on a roll now, so we might as well just push through, right? We can do it. So in 2020, 25, 26, the city of Vancouver's food grant of 325,000 was restored by unanimous decision by city council. And I would like to take this moment to thank the advocacy committee and also our chair who went to the city of Vancouver to push to get this grant restored. But the draft 2026-27 financial plan only shows that there's 162,000 applied in the plan because the 2027 grant has not been confirmed by the city of Vancouver. So what we want to do with this motion is to express our continued support for advocacy for the ongoing provision of the City of Vancouver Food Grant and to reflect the full amount in the 2026-2027 draft financial plan should the funding be confirmed. But I am hoping and crossing my fingers that this grant will be continued because I think there is appetite for supporting food to our needy students in Vancouver. In fact, I think this goes not far enough. I think the city of Vancouver should support us with more money because what we all believe in is a universal food program.

Trustee Fraser.

Thank you. I'm a little confused about when the city of Vancouver provided the money and when we allocated into our budgets. So maybe if staff could speak to that. Secretary Treasurer.

Do you have a follow-up trustee Fraser? Yes. Thank you chair. So the entire, $325,000 that the city did allocate to the VSB has been split over two financial years. And if the city of Vancouver gives another $325,000 grant, then we will apply that to our budget. But I'm not sure...

if the motion is needed, because if we get the grant, then we will apply it.

So it's just a question of timing. If this motion is approved, then if the city of Vancouver approves their grant, then it can be spent immediately. Is that correct?

Trustee Richardson.

Maybe I'm still confused so that if we pass this motion and we all, everyone wants a universal food program. And one part of that step towards that is that the city continue the grant. and then we get other funding. But at this point, there's no need to fund it because this is just say directing staff that we will, because our budget is approved by the end of April. So if we haven't heard by then it's, is it not, it's cast in stone. And that if the city was of a mind to give us the additional money, we all do it in the amended motion. So I'm really not sure how this motion is affecting what we're doing, because we're affecting the budget that we're going to be asked to approve next Wednesday. I mean, this is aspirational and it's stating our hope that the city will continue to fund as they should.

I'm going to ask the superintendent to comment as well.

I still see some confused faces. Let's put those faces to questions.

You're satisfied? Trustee Richardson?

I believe you that we, I mean, I will pass this because I'm hopeful that we'll get the money in September. I can't imagine if an outside donor gave us some money tomorrow, we couldn't use it tomorrow, but we would have to wait to the next budget. But maybe that's,

Is there, I would like to ask staff if there's any, if this motion were to pass, what are any ramifications of that to the budget or to students? Secretary, Treasurer.

So just to clarify, this motion is asking... that we do something that is already going to happen.

Okay, so I'm just as confused as Trustee Richardson. Please, please clarify.

Thank you. So we'll be providing food at a more efficient rate based on this motion. Thank you very much. Clear. Okay. Any other comments before we close? Great. Trustee Ma.

Thank you. So hopefully everybody understands what's happening. I think it's important for us as a board to take a position and to say to the city of Vancouver, that we need this money and we need it as soon as possible and that we should be spending this money as soon as we get it because getting food to our students quicker is better than having to wait until February. So I would like to see this motion pass and get our advocacy group to start talking about the increased need to move towards a universal food program.

All those in favor? Okay, Trustee Ma, Richardson, Reddy, Chan, Pedley, Fraser and Young, those opposed. Trustee Chen, abstentions. Trustee Freedcoat. Okay, the motion has passed. We will now move to our last motion tonight, which is item 2.2.9. And I will ask Trustee Reddy to read it.

Is there a seconder? Prasima, please motivate your motion.

Okay, are there any comments or questions? I see Trustee Ma and then Trustee Chen.

Just a question of clarification to the mover. Trustee Reddy, are you talking about school-based principals and vice principals?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Trustee Reddy, to propose this motion. I just want to get a clarification. So right now we are moving, I do see on the notes saying that because over staffing ratio, we will have less 2.2 million funding from the minister.

Kate, that's a question for the secretary treasurer.

Thank you. Any follow-up on that? Okay. We'll go to trustee Frico.

Okay. Couple of questions, sorry. I'm trying to understand this motion. So my question is to the mover. How do you think we're gonna allocate the money from the principal and vice principals to the classroom? And my second question is, if this motion passed, as it mentioned, we're losing $2.2 million, the funding that we're getting. So just trying to understand the intent of this motion. Thank you.

Trustee Reddy, please go ahead.

Secretary-Treasurer, would you please comment on what you just heard? And provide the page number if possible.

Are there additional questions from trustees? We'll go to Trustee Fraser.

I'm curious, you know, looking at the... table and that the information provided on the costs, it's about two and a half million dollars on principal and vice principal salaries for inclusive education. I'm curious about what is the work that the VPs do?

Is that for Alison Ogden? I believe so. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We have a follow-up from Trustee Fraser.

So, and...

So my understanding is VPs in elementary schools are typically, or are they always a full-time position? And there's some of their time allocated to being a VP and some time allocated to teaching. If we were to, it seems as though from the information provided on the funding, if we were to take away their resource, if we were to reallocate the resource time, then what we would do, we'd have the VPs as enrolling teachers. And would that be to maintain a VP in that position full-time?

Trustee Richardson, is that a hand?

So the, through the chair to, to, Assistant Superintendent Ogden. I'm still confused. So we now have, and I understood that on a K are based upon the school needs, a vice principal or principal would provide students to students with disabilities or diverse abilities.

So in passing this motion, it is how it will impact in a school setting, the support for those students in need.

To clarify that that allocated time to a teacher is a teacher who has the training or has the experience as a resource teacher because in a previous motion we were discussing how specialized that engagement with a student is for that. So we are just trading in passing this motion, we're just trading from one qualified person doing a qualified classroom job to a qualified resource teacher who is then gonna do what that other, okay. What did I, okay.

Would you mind speaking into the mic? Just, I don't know. I couldn't see what the head nods were. And for those who are listening at home.

Okay. Thank you. Trustee Freedcoat and then Trustee Fraser.

Thank you. So my question is back to Assistant Sue Ogden.

So there is no direct impact on the classroom support for students with disabilities or diverse abilities because the vice principal is covering for those positions.

So, okay, sorry, just to follow up. So in this motion, basically what it's saying is directing the salaries to the classroom support and the salaries are going to the VP because they are actually direct, like they're actually supporting the classroom and that's going for the teaching time and not for the actual VP position.

Thank you.

Trustee Fraser.

So I think what I understood is that the unintended consequence of this motion is that if the switch has to be to VP to be enrolling teacher, we lose $2.2 million. Is that correct?

So, you know, I want to make sure that students of diverse abilities and disabilities get the supports they need. I can understand why that should be supported by teachers, but in many of our elementary schools, the VPs, because they're not full-time roles, take on teaching. but I can't support a change that would result in a loss of $2.2 million within the district.

Okay, are there any other questions or comments before we move to a vote?

Okay. Are there any other comments before we move on? Okay. We'll ask the mover to close.

You're good. Okay. Thank you very much. All those in favor? Trustee Ma and Trustee Reddy. Those opposed? Trustee Richardson, Chen, Freedcoat, Chen, Pedley, Fraser, and Young. Okay, the motion is defeated.

Thank you. Thank you to everyone who's still awake in the audience and for being here. This is the hard work of the board and it is always informed by the people who show up consistently, who provide their input, who send us emails, who do a lot of hard work on the outside so that we can do the work here at the table. I want to thank a teacher I met yesterday, Daniel from Churchill, who says he watches every single one of our board meetings. Thank you. And to everyone around the table, you know, this is the hard work and this is hard work and this is what democracy looks like. And I'm really proud of the work we do each year at this table. And I thank staff for all the hours you put in to creating this amended budget for us. The financial plan has a lot of line items and you continue to show up for us and to answer our questions and we are grateful. So if there are no objections from the board, we will adjourn by consensus. Thank you very much. We adjourn at 7.55 p.m.