H.B. 524 Public Education Financial Officers: transcript

All right. Thank you. Members of the committee, um, this bill, there's an amendment. The amendment is very important. This is a very simple bill, but the amendment is critical to, uh, what we're doing here. So, uh, in statute right now, if a, um, uh, district hires a business administrator, they're required to enter into a two year contract. They don't have any other option by statute. Um, my first objective was to give the board the ability to make a determination. And the amendment reflects this more clearly to give the board the ability to make a determination of whether they want to enter into a contract, if they want to have an at will agreement, however they want to, however they want to do that. It's interesting to note that that is consistent with the way that hiring of superintendents already works. So there's not a requirement for them to enter into a specific contractual term. Uh, in statute. It's a unique provision that was related to business administrators. And all we're doing in the first part is giving the, um, school board the ability to decide do they want to have a contract? Do they want it to be at will? That's an, that's a, uh, that's between them and the business manager that they hire. The second thing that it does is it clarifies that, um, in our school organizations, that the business administrator, who is your CFO in the organization reports to the superintendent who is the CEO. It's a governance issue. Now, technically, both are still, that's still the prerogative of the, uh, board about how the hiring and frankly, if it comes to that, the firing works. Um, but inside that organization, the um, school board has a couple of very specific responsibilities. They're responsible for the strategic vision and the strategic plan. They're responsible for approving the budgets, both the initial budgets and the actuals. They're responsible. They have a, they have a responsibility there. They're responsible for the safety of the students and the faculty, um, as part of the, uh, part of this, uh, process. And they're responsible for exec, they're responsible for holding the superintendent or the CEO accountable for execution of the strategic plan, execution of the budget, execution of all these things. And so all we're trying to do is, number one, uh, give boards the ability to, um, have discretion in how they hire business administrators. That's consistent with superintendents. And number two, uh, the intent is to make sure that, um, that there is clear line of authority and there is a, a governance in, in that governance model where the business administrator and the superintendent, um, the business creator, business administrator reports to the superintendent, is working to execute those board priorities. That concludes my bill.

Thank you, Madam Vice chair. So I have a couple of questions. My first question is, um, I'm just trying to make sure that I understand this correctly. This applies to charter schools, correct? Um, I can't remember if it says just districts or if it says, I think it says, it says School districts, but that would be, well, districts doesn't charter schools. That doesn't mean in, in this context, school districts is districts. It is not charter schools. That is correct. In this context, we did not change that. Okay. Well then that probably negates my other questions. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, thank you Madam Vice chair. I have a couple of questions also. Um, so, so if, if the school board can hire a business administrator under a contract,

there's no limit on how long that contract can be? Nope. It just says it right now. It has to be two years. That's the only option. And all we're doing is giving them the discretion.

Um, so if the business administrator's reporting to the superintendent who evaluates the business administrator,

That would be between the, uh, uh, superintendent and the board who are essentially, the board is responsible for the hiring and firing. And they would've to figure out how they wanna do that inside their LEA. There's no specific, there's no specification today.

Okay. So the board would still be responsible for hiring, firing, and could be responsible for evaluating also.

That would be up to them. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, my question was very similar, um, but I don't think that was answered. Um, in a relationship of supervisory role, if there's not a, a control over the position, uh, essentially the hiring, firing, what exactly is this change doing then?

Very good question. If you have two totally independent individuals reporting to the board, and you're tasking one of them with implementing the strategic vision, that's the superintendent with whom you're supposed to hold accountable. And just for sake of discussion, the, um, there's a disagreement and the, uh, CFO chooses not to allocate the resources that the CEO needs to execute the strategic plan. You just set up conflict inside the organization. So now you have a misalignment. The intent is to essentially say, we have to work towards alignment, um, in order for us to actually execute on our strategic priorities, on our goals. So, so that's, that's the intent is to have, um, uh, a better alignment between the board's role of specifically and uniquely holding the superintendent accountable for those strategic plan, um, uh, execution of their accountability for safety, accountability for student outcomes, et cetera, and the resources that are required to be able to execute those items.

Thank you for that. And I, I guess to clarify, my, my question is more about the practical aspects, not, not necessarily the, the high level vision, but, um, what does supervision actually look like for a, um, for a superintendent? What, what, what accountability measures can they hold them to? What, what practical levers can be pulled when it comes to these misalignments if it doesn't include, uh, employment status? Like what, what exactly does, does supervision look like, I guess, at the ground level?

So, to be very specific, the statute doesn't speak to that. It's left to the LEAs to decide how to, you know, how to implement those accountability metrics that you're, uh, articulating, whether that's in an annual review process, whether that is in a student proficiency and outcomes context, whether it is, uh, uh, financials, uh, relative to, uh, you know, financial performance relative to budget, right? That it's all those, all that specificity is left to the LEA to work through. It's not, it's not called out in statute.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. And I wanna thank Representative Walter for, um, meeting with me and answering all the questions that we have. And also for Andy, the, um, amendment that adds the contract piece into, to the bill. Like, um, some of you, we still have some questions about the alignment and how that's going to work out. And I'm sure before the end of this, we'll have many more questions and scenarios that we'll, we'll want to meet with the Representative Abbott. Um, this is just a very different way of doing things in, in education, and we were trying to get our questions answered and we appreciate, um, that Representative Walter has has done that. So, um, again, we thank him for making this change.

Thank you. I, I would like to start by thanking the representative. I have great respect for the representative and I appreciate the work he's done in public education. My name is Matthew Kai and I am the superintendent of Grand County School District. Uh, over my career, I've had the opportunity to serve as a business administrator, an interim business administrator, a couple of times, an interim superintendent, director of human resource, and a director of safety operations, all in K 12 public education. Uh, today I'm representing myself in my opinion, based on more than 15 years experience in district administration. Uh, my opinion simply is that this bill is a solution to a problem that we don't have. Over the years, I've witnessed and been a part of many solutions or situations where checks and balances established within our current structure have been critical, and the ability for the school board to provide the ultimate direction as the elective body is in fact their role. Um, I feel that this BA bill aims to correct the school board governance issue at the expense of stability and the business administrator slash deputy superintendent role, and will have, uh, as it sits right now, a plethora of negative externalities that are likely not being considered and, and can't be considered. And I'd love to share specific, uh, examples of when I've had had this, uh, challenge in the number of roles that I've had. I know that my time's limited. And, uh, again, thank you Representative Walter, and thank you for letting me have a public comment.

I move the amendment.

It's a good amendment To the committee. Back to the maker of the motion. Wait. Good. Alright.

Uh, sure. I move that we favorably recommend HB 5 24 as amended.

Yes. Um, I just want to very, very quickly, um, I recognize there's a number of different ways that we do things in education, but I'm gonna point out one that I think was very illustrative. Um, in our LEAs, most often this business administrator is the deputy superintendent. It seems that the deputy superintendent should report to the superintendent. That's the reason for ending the bill.

Thank you. Um, and I just wanna explain really briefly, I, I think I might be opposed, um, on this motion, uh, I support the policy, but my concern is, is that this doesn't, I I don't think that in a, um, supervisory relationship where there's not clearly defined, um, levers, uh, there we may not actually move the goalpost or actually change the on the ground processes. Um, and I do worry that, that while the goal is correct and that this may not actually get us there, may even complicate the issue more. So I hopefully we'll continue working on it. I expect it will, uh, have no problem with this committee, but I, I'm probably going to be opposed on it for its current language right now.

Thank you. I so also want to explain my vote on it. I, um, I, I understand and appreciate, um, uh, what the sponsors is trying to do here. And, and to make things clear, um, I've also been a school board member with the business administrator superintendent reporting directly to me with a dotted line between the BA and the superintendent. And, and it, uh, worked very well. And, um, I I worry that there could be some unintended consequences with school boards and financial decisions if we, um, remove that direct relationship. So I, right now I'm a no.

I think this is a good first step to open the door. Um, I would urge the committee's support on this bill. Uh, and I will leave the rest of the sponsor.

That's okay. I appreciate the committee's time and, uh, I, I recognize that there, um, two sides of this issue. One is we might not be going far enough, and one is why are we changing the status quo? And I think, uh, my intent is to try and take a step forward. Um, I recognize that, um, uh, there's different issues with, uh, each of those, uh, each side of that coin. Um, but I do think, uh, an initial step forward to just clarify that you don't have to have a two year contract as the only way to hire a ba, number one and number two, that the CFO or the deputy superintendent should report to the CFO, the, uh, superintendent. I think that those are two that are simple, but they're, but there are clear steps, at least I believe in the right direction. I appreciate the committee's time on the bill. Alright, thank you. Back to the maker of the motion

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm, uh, grateful to be the final bill and, uh, but probably not as grateful as you are. So, uh, uh, let me explain very briefly. Uh, house Bill 5 24 public education financing officers is pretty simple. There was a provision in statute that, uh, was a little bit unusual. It specified that business administrators were oblig that, uh, boards, when they hired business administrators were obligated to off to pro, uh, enter into a two year contract. It couldn't be more, it couldn't be less. It had to be a two year contract. It's very different from the way that superintendents were treated. Um, uh, so what we tried to do was very simply, uh, uh, make a couple of clarifications. The first one is, instead of there being a mandatory two year term for business administrators in statute, we just left that at the, we just left that at the discretion of the board. So the board, when they hire the business administrator, they can hire them under a contract of a term that they choose or negotiate. Um, they can not have a contract. They can work through an employment agreement or some other type of an, uh, at will arrangement, but it just puts that discretion back to the LEA board to decide how to, um, uh, retain, uh, their business administrator instead of it by statute being a mandatory two years. And the other thing that we did that was, that was, uh, um, uh, clarification was the deputy superintendent of is, uh, the deputy superintendent of finance is a deputy superintendent. And we just made it clear that the deputy superintendent reports to the superintendent. That doesn't take away the ability for the board to hire. It doesn't take away the ability for the board to say, um, we want the business administrator to provide, uh, financial or other reports in, uh, board meetings or in other contexts, doesn't take away the ability for the board to specify how they want to, uh, retain and handle, uh, uh, um, uh, re uh, annual review processes. They can handle all of that in their, either their contract or their employment agreement with their business administrator. Um, but it was, uh, um, uh, again, a little bit unusual. We have a deputy superintendent that, in some cases didn't technically report to the superintendent. And so I'm in intending to, uh, just clarify those roles and relationships. It doesn't take away the ability of the board to have either, um, hiring, firing, uh, supervis, uh, sorry, uh, have, uh, uh, annual review reporting. It doesn't change any of those things. It just clarifies that, that, in fact, we do have a deputy superintendent over finance that reports to the superintendent. So those are the two provisions in the bill. I Thank you. Does that conclude your Presentation? That concludes my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator

Yes. Thank you. Um, you said that the board would have an opportunity to decide that contract on itself, but it's written that they are an Atwell employee here. Uh, please look at the fir please look at the amendment that was adopted. House amendment number one. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And then, um, thank you for clarifying that. I'm sorry, I didn't see that.

No, it's okay. It wasn't some, as you know, they don't sometimes print. You have to look at them, uh, click on them to see them. So thank you for, thank you for noticing that.

And then if the Deputy superintendent operations reports directly to the state superintendent, does the state superintendent have the ability to fire and hire them only, or does the board have the opportunity to fire and hire them? It depends on the board's contract with the de with, uh, that, uh, with the Deputy Superintendent of Operations. Um, so that concerns me a little bit because now it becomes more political about firing and hiring your superintendent of operations. Sometimes these positions become contentious. Sometimes our positions become, um, you're the person that has to report information that people don't like. And so when you make that position more political and at will to one person or to a group that is political, it becomes more difficult for you to be honest, because you're afraid of losing your job. Do you? Well, I'm like, you don't think that, but I think that that is problematic, that that would be creating more instability in a position that we really do need a lot of stability in, because that institutional knowledge over the years has benefited us greatly. So my concern is that this would make it a little bit more instability, would create instability in that position.

Mr. Chair, would you like me to respond? Yes, please. Um, I think that the, uh, not, I think the intent is actually alignment. So to be very clear, the chief financial officer for the, whether it's the local school board or frankly the state school board, um, it makes sense for them to report through the chief executive officer. That's a, uh, that's a not, not a, that's not just a typical, that's the most common structure. Um, further, I think that, um, it, uh, I think that the focus has been on the business administrator or the, um, deputy superintendent of our operations. But really this is about, in some ways, this is really about the superintendent, if you wanna think about it in that context, because the board has a couple of very specific responsibilities. The board is responsible for the strategic vision and the strategic plan. Mm-hmm. They're responsible for policy. They're responsible for the budget and the financials. They're responsible, responsible for the safety of the, uh, students. And the, uh, and I'm talking about in an LEA, the students and the faculty that are part of the organization, and they're responsible for essentially, uh, uh, hiring and firing, specifically the superintendent. That's not one they can delegate and holding the superintendent, uh, accountable for execution of the, the strategic plan within that framework, that budgetary framework, and within the framework as, uh, the policy framework, the legal, like executing that plan. And so what we're really doing here is we're saying very clearly that, um, the super, the, the, uh, deputy superintendent is, uh, part of that team. They have the ability to be hired, uh, by the board. Um, they, the board has broad discretion about how they want that ultimately to work. Um, but the primary accountability for execution of the strategic plan, staying, um, uh, in, uh, on budget, making sure that we're adhering to following policy, and that you can't delegate that away from the superintendent. That is the superintendent's responsibility. And that is, um, that is part of the, the role there. And so, uh, we, the bill in a lot of ways focuses on the de on the deputy superintendent that, uh, is acting as the chief financial officer. But what what we're really trying to do is create alignment, um, in the organization to make it clear that the superintendent has a responsibility, even if there's somebody A-A-C-F-O there, they have a responsibility to execute, to stay on budget, to follow policy, and to make sure that that strategic plan and that strategic vision to the best of their ability are realized.

Thank you. Um, I know that you work really hard to work with the education community, and the education community isn't supporting this bill. And so, um, I'm, I'm, I'm curious, what was the problem that you're trying to solve with this bill? Because if our school districts don't like it and don't want it to happen, what's, what's the remedy that you're seeing that they're not?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I think I've already articulated it. Number one was, uh, there's this, uh, odd function in statute where we could only hire a business man, a business administrator, under a two year contract. Um, I think that that needs to be resolved. And I think that that is a, a decision that is properly left to the LEA. And then the second one was, uh, the alignment between the role of the deputy superintendent and the superintendent.

Thank you. I, I have just a few, uh, questions that, that I'm concerned about. So, so you're moving from a defined term to at will employee, right? If you look at the sub, or, sorry, if you look at the amendment, it gives the board discretion to enter into a contract or not if they choose. So it's at the, it's at the discretion of the board. Okay. So, um, is, is there a potential with this for the financial officer to be pressured?

Um, I wouldn't think so. Um, I understand that that's a concern that's been raised, but, uh, I wouldn't think so. I think that the deputy, the deputy superintendent or the business administrator has the ability when they sit down and, and, uh, enter into either a, an employment agreement, which does not have a contract, it sets at will or an employment contract if they enter into an actual contract, that they can, uh, have a clear understanding of what their expectations are from, uh, the board and how that they, uh, see that working. But I think it's also very important to make sure that, um, there isn't conflict within the organization, um, about, uh, what the role of the deputy superintendent and the superintendent are.

Yeah. I'm a, I, I'm a little bit concerned that that business administrator would report directly to the superintendent because of that, the things that I, I mean, normally they'd report to the board, right? Kinda like a

CFO. Actually, the CFO is doesn't normally report to the board. I think that the structure that we've made, the adjustments are aligned with the typical structure for A CFO. It'd be highly unusual for A CFO not to report to the CEO. Same thing, the, the Chief Operating Officer. It would be highly unusual for the Chief Operating Officer not to report through the CEO.

Okay. It'd be, it would be highly unusual for the Chief Technology Officer not to report to the CEO.

More just comments actually. Um, okay. Uh, if you noted, I am the floor sponsor of this bill, right? So I do support it. And here's some reasons why. I have a Master's in Human Resource Management. And when I look at this, I look at how this is executive alignment, and we know that leadership teams work best when they're rowing in the same direction. And this at will status ensures that if a financial officer's vision or performance no longer aligns with the district's strategic goals, the board has the flexibility to make a change without the multi-year contractual hurdles that currently exist. And, you know, we live in a performance driven culture, and at will, employment is a standard in the private sector for a reason, because it fosters a culture of excellence, and we should be no different. It signals that these are not just placeholder positions, but vital, vital leadership roles where continued employment is earned through ongoing high level performance and fiscal stewardship. And our constituents expect us to be nimble. And when fiscal mismanagement or a lack of transparency occurs, the public expects a swift response. And this bill removes that protected term, um, barriers that sometimes shield poor performing administrators from necessary accountability. And for that reason, I, um, support this bill.

Thanks. Uh, you know, I think that I'd like to point on the irony of performance pay. When you look at what's happening in Alpine School District and trying to create a new school district, no money, that would be a, a failure. But we're trying to work around it because sometimes education doesn't really fit every mole in the business model. Um, I, I worry that no one will want this job, and I worry that because it's an at will employee and that you won't have a contract, you won't be able to hire people. And also the people we have an example of, um, we had an office called USOR, I forgetting what the name of it was, and people would be hesitant to actually be honest with the board with and the state superintendent, because it became hostile when you started reporting what was actually happening and trying to move the needle. It becomes more political. And I, I get the private sector is different than, well, I think we all want to be performance pay, but honestly, you don't get, you don't get to pick who your performers are. That's why we have kids that are suffering in inequalities in third grade and can't achieve at the same level. So, um, our public sector is different than our private sector. We are, um, beholden to the public who we, we work for. And so it's, it's frustrating when we don't succeed at the rate that everybody thinks we should. It's because we have a lot of variables that really are in our control. There's a famous story about blueberries. I won't get into it, but we don't get to pick the blueberries. We get to sell just the blueberries come to us and we gotta use them. So I struggle with this bill. And, um, I, I, I hope that you can gather support for the school organizations because they have trouble with this bill as well.

Comment? I do. Um, I just wanna say that this bill isn't about performance based pay. It's about a performance based culture, which is very different. And this actually elevates the, the status of the position to a professional standard. It's about a standard and a culture we're trying to create, not the mechanism for how we pay our business administrators. Because, um, if you actually what you're saying, the, the opposite is actually true because in the private sector, nearly every CFO and high level executive is an at will employee. And the top tier talent, the kind of people we want managing our districts, um, are used to being judged on their performance and not the length of their contracts. So by moving to this model, um, we're they, we're going to get more serious candidates. So I look forward to it.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, my name is Nikki George. I'm currently serving as the president of the Jordan School Board. I'm happy to say that we currently have excellent relationships between our superintendent and business administrator, but I'm still here to pose some concerns. Public schools operate differently from the private sector, primarily because they're funded by taxpayers. And as a local school board member, we view the stewardship of those funds as a sacred responsibility. One of us, a local school board's primary responsibilities is to hire and evaluate the two key key positions. The superintendent and the business administrator each plays a distinct and complimentary role. The superintendent provides vision, innovation, and new opportunities for students. While the business administrator offers financial expertise, prudence, and careful oversight, this balance has proven in valuable in ensuring both progress and fiscal responsibility. My concern with this bill is regarding lines 1 27 through 1 28, which indicate that the business administrator would report directly to the superintendent. I worry that this structure could unintentionally place the business administrator in a difficult position when providing independent fiscal analysis, particularly if that analysis differs from a proposal advanced by the superintendent. The board relies on the ability of both roles to offer candid balance perspectives so that we can make the most responsible decisions on behalf of taxpayers. I respectfully ask that this bill is not allowed to proceed without altering lines 1 27 through 1 28. In order to continue the essential balance of having both superintendent and business administrator report to school boards providing balance and wisdom, this board makes informed and beneficial financial decisions on behalf of taxpayers.

Um, yes. Lexi Cunningham, U-S-S-A-U-S-B-A. Um, there are two parts of the bill. The the first part deals with the, the deputy, um, superintendent. That's A-A-U-S-B-E. And i, I don't wanna address that, that's not my place to address. The second part is addressing school business administrators. First and foremost, we'd like to thank Representative Walter for the amendment to, um, the bill that put the language in that business administrators could be at will, or they could negotiate a contract with their, their governing boards or their boards of education. We appreciate that change. Um, I think that that will allow boards of education to get quality candidates and keep quality candidates. We still have some concerns about who the, the business administrator reports to. I've shared those with Representative Walter, and we are hopeful that we'll be able to work on that so that we can have, um, smooth running school districts and boards of education. We know where the lines of supervision are, and that we can help superintendents and board members and boards of education, um, do good work for the students in their LEAs. Thank you.

I move that we pass out with a favorable recommendation, house Bill 5 24 as amended to the full body of the Senate. That

Yes. To belabor a point, sorry. But, you know, we do have a culture issue in our schools, and we've created that cultural issue in the schools. Our bills change directions frequently. There's a punitive process in our schools where if you're not with the, if you're not in line, you are considered to be someone who's not a team player. When I worked in a school, I would ask the person that agreed with me, the person that didn't agree with me, and the squeakiest wheel in the school, and find out why these things weren't working. And we could have a dialogue. I'm afraid that this position will cause people to not want the job, and then also to not be honest when they were, when they had the job. If we can't have honest dialogue, it creates a problem. As, as has been mentioned, we have had to go into closed doors and hidden, um, resumes to hire people for our higher education communities. Our schools are becoming contentious. The culture is struggling. We are trying to be as honest and upright and forthcoming as possible, and it still seems punitive. Every teacher, every industry I person I work with feels that. And so I don't think this is a step in the right direction. I think all of these people serve with integrity. And, um, I know this isn't your intention, but this is how it feels to us. It really does. And so, um, we have a culture problem in a lot of our schools because the culture from here is mistrust over legislating, changing the rules, and every piece of money we get has, um, restrictions on it. So, um, respectfully, I know that you work hard on your bills, but I think this would be a step in the wrong direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I appreciate the committee's time and I appreciate the, uh, um, uh, long evening tonight. Um, I just wanna make, I just wanna make, uh, one particular comment as it relates to this particular proposal. In the state of Utah, we have a vision and mission for public education. The legislature envisions. This is in statute. The legislature envisions an educated citizenry that encompasses the following foundational principles, citizen participation in civic and political affairs, economic prosperity for the state by graduating students who are college and career ready, strong moral and social values, and loyalty and commitment to constitutional government. The legislation recognizes that the public education's mission is to assure Utah the best educated citizenry in the world, and each individual, the training to succeed in a global society by providing students with learning and occupational skills, character development, literacy and numeracy, high quality instruction curriculum based on high standards and relevance and effective assessment to inform high quality instruction and accountability. That is the vision and mission for education in the state of Utah. In that context, the state board is tasked with creating a strategic plan that will execute that strategic vision and mission. And in order for us to essentially move those objectives from the state board to the LEA and help us achieve those, uh, really this one is wildly aspirational, but I think it's the right aspiration to assure Utah, the best educated citizenry in the world, and each individual, the training to succeed in a global society. Um, we'd have to have some kind of alignment. We'd have to have some kind of an alignment around, uh, uh, some specific outcomes and things that, uh, pri priorities that we think are important. Um, I think that, uh, making sure that our boards and their interactions with, and their engagement with the superintendent and the deputy superintendent, that that alignment is really important to have, uh, properly structured. And that's really what the bill is about today, is to help us create the alignment, the organizational alignment, uh, inside our, uh, education, uh, uh, education administration and boards to help us achieve, uh, these, this vision and mission, uh, that are outlined in statute. Thank you, Mr.

Yeah, I would just say that the amendment, uh, does not tie anyone's hand. So if they don't want to do this, they can have a contract. But this gives, this bill provides mutual flex flexibility. So, um, with that, I think that this is, we're going to produce and have the ability to get better leaders. And, uh, with that, I support the bill and move, and that i'll and my sum.

One more. Motion. Motion To adjourn. Non debatable. All in favor say aye. Aye. Oh, Wait. Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, house Bill 5 24.

Public education financial officers makes a couple of very, um, minor technical changes. Uh, the first thing that it does is it clarifies that the deputy superintendent, so this is your business administrator, um, this is the person that is typically considered your chief financial officer in a, uh, school district reports to the Chief executive officer, or in some cases the chief administrative officer, the superintendent. Um, in many cases, uh, we have, uh, business administrators, which the, the statute still includes a provision for. So the business administrators or this deputy superintendent role, they're hired by the board. Um, but, uh, my bill clarifies that as the deputy or the, and or the Chief financial Officer, they still report to the chief admin, the chief, uh, executive officer, the superintendent. The second thing that it does is it, uh, addresses a kind of a unique provision that, uh, uh, exists in our statute. Business administrators are required to be hired for a two year contract. There's no discretion for the boards, uh, who are hiring them to hire them for longer or shorter. And so this bill clarifies that they may enter that the board, when they hire the business administrator, may enter into a contract. Um, they also may enter, they also may enter into an at-will agreement that discretion is, uh, left to the boards. Some of the concern that's been, um, uh, shared about this bill is the ability for a business administrator to have, uh, direct correspondence or communication with board members. Um, uh, if there, there, there's examples that I think are good examples where there's been, um, a business administrator that felt like they needed to provide certain financial information to the, uh, to the board in their, their, in their role. I don't, it's, it's my belief that this change doesn't undermine, uh, the capacity of the business administrator who is still hired by the board, uh, to, uh, help, uh, provide information and, um, uh, and, and support to the board in their role as the business administrator. Particularly given that the board is ultimately responsible for approving the budgets, uh, both the initial budget and the final end of year actuals approving the audits. There's a number of financial roles that the board has that they cannot delegate. And the business administrators role is, uh, uh, related to those. But the, it is still the deputy superintendent. And, uh, to make it consistent with the other deputy superintendents in the, uh, various school districts, uh, we've made that clarification about how they report for lineman issues. That's the bill. Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I waive Summation has been waived.