Seven asks the Board can vote on.

The Board directs the Superintendent's office to pause new AI-tool procurement, expansion of existing AI-tool licenses, and new vendor pilots from the date of adoption through the seating of the next permanent superintendent, except for existing renewals required to maintain instructional continuity.

Procurement decisions made during a leadership transition foreclose options for the incoming administration. A pause does not undo current pilots; it preserves choice. The pause is a stewardship action, not a value judgment on the existing tools.

• Scope: any new master service agreement, data processing agreement, or expansion of seat count for student-facing AI tools.
• Out of scope: renewals required to maintain a tool already in active classroom use, security patches, and operational maintenance.
• Reporting: monthly one-page memo to the Board listing in-scope items received and how each was handled.

The Board commissions an independent equity audit of all student-facing AI tools currently in use in SFPS classrooms. The audit shall be conducted by an entity with no current or pending contract with the vendors under review and shall report directly to the Board.

The district's stated rationale for the AI rollout is equity. The current public record contains no independent measurement of whether the tools are reaching the students they were intended to reach, at what rates, with what outcomes, and at what cost to students who were already served well by existing instruction.

• Auditor selection: by Board RFP. Auditor cannot have received vendor funding within the preceding three years.
• Scope: usage rates, performance outcomes, and incident logs disaggregated by Title I status, English-learner status, IEP status, race, tribal affiliation, and school site.
• Data: the district provides the auditor with access to all anonymized usage and outcome data on the same terms vendors receive under existing contracts.
• Deliverable: a public report with findings, a non-public technical appendix with student-level data, and a list of remediation items with named owners.
• Evaluation scaffold: the audit assesses the rollout against four ordinary measures (whether the community was listened to before deployment, whether the deciding was done by a body with the authority to decide, whether the doing was technically competent, and whether the adjusting is responsive to what the community reports back). UNESCO's 2025 report 'AI and the Future of Education' (ISBN 978-92-3-100784-2, DOI 10.54675/KECK1261, pp. 108–127) names this scaffold as a working evaluation rubric for AI in education.
• Reporting form: the audit reports each of the four measures on a three-tier scale (absent / partial / present) with cited evidence for each rating.

The Board directs the Superintendent's office to enter formal consultation with the leadership of each Pueblo and tribal nation served by SFPS regarding the collection, storage, training use, and curricular content of student-facing AI tools, consistent with the principles of Indigenous data sovereignty.

A meaningful percentage of SFPS students are members of Pueblo and tribal nations. Vendor data-processing agreements treat the resulting student data as a commercial asset by default. Tribal sovereignty over the data of tribal members is not a courtesy the district extends; it is a relationship the district enters. The Legislature's own analyst now recommends the same move at state scale: the LESC's May 2026 brief names a formal tribal consultation process before statewide AI tools are used in schools as 'a unique area New Mexico could lead on.' The ask has a second witness, and it sits in the Roundhouse.

• Consultation, not notification. The format and pace of each conversation is set by tribal leadership, not by the district.
• Scope includes: voice recordings from K-2 reading tools, learning-pattern data from tutoring tools, chatbot inputs, and any curricular content involving tribal history, language, or cultural material.
• Outcome documents are reviewed by tribal leadership before publication.
• Tribal opt-out at any granularity (student, family, site, nation) is honored without instructional penalty.

The Board establishes a standing Parent and Teacher AI Advisory Council with binding review authority over the categories listed below. Council members are selected by application from the parent and certified-teacher community, not by district appointment, and serve staggered two-year terms.

The deliberation surfaces that produced the current rollout were composed primarily of vendor representatives and peer-district administrators. Parents and classroom teachers were named as audiences for the result, not as participants in the deliberation. A standing council with named scope brings the affected community into the room before the next decision is made, not after.

• Membership: nine parents (drawn proportionally from elementary, middle, and high school families) and six certified classroom teachers. No district administrators as voting members.
• Binding scope: new vendor selection, expansion of an existing tool to a new grade band, and any change to a data processing agreement.
• Advisory scope: curriculum integration, professional development design, parent communication, and the procurement pause sunset.
• Operating support: meeting facilitation, document preparation, and translation services provided by the district at parity with other Board-recognized councils.
• Charter language: the Council's standing brief is the same four-measure scaffold the equity audit uses (listening, deciding, doing, adjusting). For each new procurement, the Council scores: was the community heard before deployment, was the choice made by a body with the authority, was the deployment technically competent, is the feedback loop actually built. The four scores accompany the Council's binding vote.

The Board directs that the full text of every active master service agreement, data processing agreement, and addendum for student-facing AI tools be posted to a single public page on the district website, with a current copy maintained as contracts are renewed or amended.

The district's public communications describe the tools in plain language. The terms that govern data, retention, model training, and indemnification are in the contracts. The community is entitled to read the contracts that govern what happens to its children's data, in the same form the district reads them.

• One canonical page, linked from the AI rollout overview, listing every active student-facing AI tool with a direct PDF link to the current contract and every addendum.
• Posting standard: within seven business days of execution or amendment.
• Redaction limited to true trade secrets and information protected by statute. Reasons for redaction are noted inline with a citation to the governing authority.
• Existing contracts posted within thirty days of adoption.

The Board affirms its support for negotiating AI-specific protections into the next master agreement with the Santa Fe Education Association and any other collective-bargaining unit representing district employees, modeled on the six protections ratified by United Teachers Los Angeles in April 2026: human-in-the-loop on every consequential decision, no surveillance use, no replacement of bargaining-unit work, mandatory consultation before deployment, educator opt-out, and transparency on vendor terms.

In April 2026 thirty-five thousand UTLA educators ratified the first major K-12 contract with explicit AI protections, by ninety-two percent. The terms are now field-tested. Importing them into the Santa Fe agreement is faster, cheaper, and more defensible than authoring local language from scratch. The Santa Fe Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers New Mexico affiliate are the natural counterparties.

• Protection 1 (Human in the loop): any AI output used in a consequential decision about a student or an educator carries a named human reviewer on the record.
• Protection 2 (No surveillance): AI tools deployed in SFPS classrooms or on SFPS devices are not used for surveillance of bargaining-unit employees, including productivity scoring or sentiment analysis.
• Protection 3 (No replacement of bargaining-unit work): AI tools do not perform work previously performed by bargaining-unit members without negotiated transition terms.
• Protection 4 (Mandatory consultation before deployment): any new AI tool deployed in a setting where bargaining-unit members work is subject to consultation with the unit before deployment.
• Protection 5 (Educator opt-out): an educator may decline to use a given AI tool in their own instruction without retaliation, and the district provides a non-AI workflow for any compliance function.
• Protection 6 (Vendor-terms transparency): educators have read access to the full DPA and master service agreement for any tool they are asked to use with students.

The Board directs the Superintendent's office to exercise the local control the Public Education Department's own guidance provides — "If a district or state charter does not wish for students' audio to be retained, local administrators can elect to remove the retention of the student's voice" (AMIRA-ISIP Guidance 8.2025) — by setting voice-recording retention to zero district-wide; to request in writing that the vendor disable audio collection entirely where the product supports it; and to adopt a standardized written opt-out process for the Amira assessment's voice-recording component, with written acknowledgment to the family and no instructional penalty to the student.

The state mandates the K-2 assessment; it does not mandate that children's voices be retained. PED's guidance places that control with local administrators, and alternative formats exist within the state's own program. Today the alternatives are scoped narrowly and the process is informal — whether a family's request is honored depends on which teacher a child asks. A district that intends to honor requests should be able to say so in writing, uniformly, before the first assessment window of the school year.

• Retention: student voice-recording retention set to zero district-wide, using the local-administrator control PED's guidance names.
• Collection: a written request to the vendor to disable audio collection entirely for SFPS, where the product supports it; the vendor's written response is posted on the public contracts page named in SFAI-2026-05.
• Opt-out process: a one-page standardized form; the family submits it to the school; the school returns written acknowledgment within ten business days; the student is assessed by the alternative format with no instructional penalty and no participation-rate pressure directed at the family.
• Reporting: the district publishes the count of opt-out requests received and acknowledged, by school, once per assessment window. Counts only; no student-identifying information.