Regular Meeting

No content available.

[195] Nancy Thomas: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[212] SPEAKER_27: Thank you for attending the December 28, 2016 board meeting of the Board of Education of Newark Unified School District. Individuals who would like to address the board are asked to fill out a speaker card located at the back of the room. Each speaker has three minutes and can only speak once per topic. Please state your name clearly as the meeting is being recorded. Individuals may address school business items not on the agenda. However, the board cannot comment on those items. Our next topic is we have approval of the agenda. I would like to note for my fellow board members that we did move some things around and so we do need approval. We've moved the consent items towards the back end of the agenda and I'll be bringing back to the board a formalized change to our board policy because it is within our board policy. But for this one, traditionally we've had it at the front end with consent item. And I want to move to the back end because we want new business to be at the beginning so that our public members can. can come and speak to new business and usually staff reports and people who are part of the community are here for new business and not necessarily consent items. So it makes more sense to move that up towards the front end and that's what we have today. And again we will adopt that pending your approval but for today we do need the motion and second and voting please.

[301] Nancy Thomas: I move that we approve a change in the order of our agenda to what is published.

[309] Ray Rodriguez: OK. Can I say something? Yes. Yeah. I cannot agree with that right now. I would rather have a motion stating that we're going to move it just for this particular meeting. Yeah. And then because the board really needs to talk about it. Not that I disagree with it, it's just that I really think it's something the whole board needs to talk about it and then approve it that way.

[339] SPEAKER_27: Right. And that's what I was asking for, just to approve for tonight. Right. And I just want to let you know that that's the change that's not the customary agenda, that that change was made so that you're aware of what you're approving. Got it. Okay. So it is just for tonight, correct?

[354] Nancy Thomas: Right. That's my motion for tonight.

[358] SPEAKER_27: Ms. Crocker.

[359] SPEAKER_19: I just would like to say that, from my perspective, the order of the agenda is at the discretion of the president and superintendent. They set up the agenda. And so their order is what they feel is right. As long as it's published and people know when things are happening, then they can make their choices when they come.

[378] Nancy Thomas: Well, I think if you look at our board policy 93, board bylaw 9300, you'll see that it's required that we have this order of business.

[391] SPEAKER_27: Right. So it, it is written in, for us in, in board policy.

[394] SPEAKER_19: Yeah, we need it. And so. That is the case that we need to address it, going back to that. Right. Right.

[398] Ray Rodriguez: But I, I. So I'll make the second. Okay, we have a second.

[402] SPEAKER_19: I already made the second.

[402] Ray Rodriguez: Oh, you did.

[403] SPEAKER_27: Oh, we have a second. Okay. Okay. Vote please.

[415] Diego Torres: Ms. Crocker.

[416] SPEAKER_19: I did vote.

[425] Ray Rodriguez: I've got to pick the letters up. Thank you, Tom. Appreciate that. No, don't make them smaller.

[429] SPEAKER_19: Oh, you can.

[430] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you.

[430] SPEAKER_19: You can see everybody.

[434] SPEAKER_27: And also to members of the audience, the setup is a little bit different tonight. And so we are piloting the dual television monitor system so that it's clear for the audience to see the presentations. But then also I think more importantly is Historically, we've always looked down at our monitors when there's been a presentation. And in my opinion, it's always been awkward or disrespectful. And so we wanted a second monitor here so that we're looking at the presentation and then making eye contact with our presenters as well. And so we're not focused on our computers. And we'll see how it goes before we make it a permitted change. Report of closed session items, we discussed three items, which is public employee discipline, conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation, and a conference with a labor negotiator. There's no action taken. Onto number nine, student report.

[496] SPEAKER_46: I currently I I have my second concussion for this year So I haven't been at school for this past week, but We are currently having our winter spirit week so I On Monday, we had a whiteout, a snow day, so all the students should have dressed up in all snow gear, all white. And then Tuesday, today, they dressed up the seniors as Santa or Mrs. and Mr. Claus. And then all of the other classes dressed up as elves or reindeer or other workshops. characters and then Wednesday they're doing holiday pajamas so like kids when they wake up in the morning they're all in their pajamas with their toys and so all the students will be dressed up and then on Thursday we're ending it with ugly sweaters and that is also our winter rally and that will be at the event center at 1139 a.m. and so if you would like to come you're welcome and that's all I have today

[562] SPEAKER_27: Thank you, Sierra. Superintendent's report, number 10.

[570] SPEAKER_22: Thank you, President Nguyen, members of the board, ladies and gentlemen. At this time, I want to bring your attention to the playground document in the packet. And before we have some discussion about it, I want to point out that this was a first good effort, I think, by our friends not only at Vanner, but also Vince and their team and Brian's team. But before I have Brian kind of describe what's in there, I want to tell you that what I heard the board talk about was really looking at how do we revitalize playgrounds and how do we, is there stuff we can repair? Can we repair it and make it safe? Not necessarily replacing all with new. And I know that's part of the kind of the question and conversation. So I just want to, Explicitly say I'm aware of that and we may need to make some further adjustments But I think it's a at least gives you a pretty good idea what we're looking at and With that I'm gonna go ahead and Brian. Do you want to describe what is in the playground? Replacement spreadsheet You can use mine Here you go

[651] SPEAKER_25: It is here. OK. OK. Vince actually probably should come forward and speak to more of this since he actually put it together. But I can give you a description based on what we discussed. We actually, as the board requested at the last school board meeting, we did compile a list for every playground structure in the district. And we were looking at the question of whether or not to repair or to replace. Unfortunately, given the age of some of the structures and the regulations regarding when and whether you can do certain types of repair modifications to them and what the qualifications are to do that, the majority of ours are now old enough and far enough along in their useful life that it is not in a position where significant repairs would be eligible to be done and keep them compliant without actually replacing them. Vince had a rather large report from his walks with the safety inspections that were done. And so instead we put together for all of them, if they were to replace, what would it be? Now we recognize it's quite possible we won't be replacing them all. And it may be that we go from most severe to least severe. But my understanding of the instruction was give us repair costs for the ones we can repair, give us replacement costs for everything, whether we can repair it or not, so that the board can make a decision one way or the other. Where we ran into a stumbling block was trying to identify repairable and repair costs because of the significant restrictions on how and when they can be repaired. And Vince, I'll leave it to you to give a better description than I am doing right now, because you have more detailed information on each of the structures as far as why we wouldn't be able to do repairs and why you weren't recommending going forward with that. Sure. Is this working?

[763] SPEAKER_24: Well, with playground equipment, there was someone, I can't remember who, said that we could just weld it up, just go in there with an arc welder. But with playground equipment, you can't just go in there and weld it up. You've got to be a certified playground inspector to go in there and review any repairs that you make. And any time you modify a playground equipment, modify means welding. manufacturing parts are doing anything without using the OEM parts, which are original equipment manufacturer parts, then the district becomes liable. And that means that if, God forbid, a student got hurt, we couldn't go back to the manufacturer and say, I don't know, the slide failed. So we would be liable. And the problem is, is like Brian was saying, the structures are really old. You know, and I'm all for repairing stuff. I'm a maintenance guy, and we probably could get parts. It's not likely. I do have some quotes. To give you an example, on one of the play structures, just to replace the bridge, I got a quote. If they can still find the part, it's $11,000 just to replace one part. The entire structure is worth 15K. And the bridge is not the only problem with the structure. I can show you, man, I think I have almost 300 pages of inspection reports from the playground equipment, from Kenan, from the last playground equipment inspector, from Tonya, who was here before me. And at a certain period, you have to start looking for replacement, not only just because of the structure. But the structures have changed so much, it's more beneficial to the students to go with the newer structure. Because I don't know if you've toured the structures, but some of them are a little boring. There's really nothing to them. They're not even what I would call exciting or even really effective. Just like Bob over at Bunker. I forgot the new name. He's the one who originally installed the monkey bars over there. And that is great. It's good for physical ed and stuff like that. But the only problem with monkey bars is they have a high injury rate. And it's not really compatible for that age group. Yeah, so what we really need to do, and what I was trying to do with Brian and Vanner is to give you an idea of what we're talking about with cost. Now, just with cost, it's just like a place structure. Like say, we can buy a Pinto, or we can buy a BMW. My quotes are towards the high end. So we get a quality piece of equipment. Because if we repair it, like say we repair that bridge, and we've got a 20-year-old play structure that still needs to be recoded, we don't have a warranty, and we're still not compliant. If we get a new place structure, we've got a warranty. And the place structure warranties are pretty long, 10, 15 years. And plus, they're totally compliant. What happens with these old place structures is a lot of these manufacturers do not even want to sell parts anymore because all the compliance regulations have so changed that they'll become liable. But I'm not saying we can't repair anything. We can, but once you get into the 15 to 25-year range, you've got to really start thinking about doing new. But one thing that would be helpful for me on a maintenance side is if we could decide, some sites have six play structures. Do we need six? I mean, we can get two massive play structures instead of six small ones. So there's all kinds of options. We don't have to go with play structures. We can go with wall balls. There's so many options. This is just to give you an idea of the cost. This is a little high. I think it was $2.3 million. But that's a worst case scenario. Because I think it was three years ago, I think you guys spent $300,000 on play structures. They did put new play structures in. I checked with Vanner. And they did not repair, they replaced. So does anyone have any questions?

[1048] Nancy Thomas: Well, I think when they replaced the one at Bunker, oh, sorry.

[1053] Bowen Zhang: Frankie.

[1056] SPEAKER_26: Go ahead. So what I heard you say, one, is that we need to have certified folks to repair playgrounds. So do we have a plan to have any of our maintenance folks get certified?

[1069] SPEAKER_24: Well, anyone can repair playground equipment. Anyone can repair. It's just the repair has to be inspected by a certified playground equipment guy. And I'm supposed to go to a training. Tonya was.

[1082] SPEAKER_26: So you could be certified or you are certified?

[1084] SPEAKER_24: No, I can be certified. It's like a two day training.

[1087] SPEAKER_26: So then maybe we should have a plan so that that happens because playgrounds are going to be obviously need a maintenance. that would be good for us. I know there might be other maintenance folks who could potentially get certified, maybe if it's only a two-day program and the cost isn't exorbitant. The other piece, you said that there are some playgrounds that can be replaced. So maybe it would be helpful, at least for bringing this back next time, would be having Another column that kind of compares cost of repair versus new because you're right if it costs more To repair than it does to get new it doesn't make sense or even close to then but that way we can we can compare That would be helpful unless you're saying that all of the playgrounds are to the point that It would be more cost-efficient to To get a new one. Is that what you're saying?

[1143] SPEAKER_24: No inspector out of the four inspectors was comfortable repairing any of the playground structures. They felt it was that far gone. All of them? All of them.

[1155] SPEAKER_27: But I guess what he's asking is, because on your spreadsheet, each school site has multiple, you know, some up to six or seven sites. Yes. Does that mean that all six of them are defunct? Or just some of them are worse off than others that needs replacement?

[1169] SPEAKER_24: Yeah, there, you know, there's like, like at music, for instance, there's a play structure in the middle of the campus in the back. You know, we have it all plywooded up. And we have a fence around it. And I mean, it's only got two levels on it. And it's just like you climb that level and you go down. I mean, it's one of the most basic play structures out there. It has really no beneficial value. And no one's using it. But did anyone see the reports?

[1199] SPEAKER_22: So let me, could I have a point of order?

[1204] SPEAKER_22: I just want to make sure that I know I wanted to present this, but is the place to talk about it here or is it when we come to the agenda item? Is that okay? I just want to make sure we're not. Okay. Is that correct? Yeah.

[1217] SPEAKER_19: I have a couple of questions. Okay. Okay. Um, there are multiple sites at each place. For example, Lincoln has six sites listed. Um, Birch Grove Intermediate has three. Does that mean that Lincoln has more sites than Birch Grove Intermediate? Or does it mean those are the only ones that you are concerned about replacement?

[1243] SPEAKER_24: What I did is the last inspection that was done January 2016, it was like 150 pages. All I did was I reviewed all those structures that they said were too far gone.

[1256] SPEAKER_19: So there are some that are still there that are.

[1258] SPEAKER_24: We have a few really good structures. Some are almost brand new. Some are within the five-year range. We don't have to replace every structure in the district. But we do have to really seriously consider replacing some, because they're just the worst I've seen.

[1277] SPEAKER_19: The second piece is I wanted to ask whether this particular spreadsheet talks about the surface. There are other places where we're talking about getting padding. I mean, having the right surface underneath the play structure is very important. And does the cost here include that?

[1293] SPEAKER_24: Well, the service that we're using right now is called Fiber. Fiber is just like wood chips. We spend $40,000 every summer to refiber all the play structures that have fiber in the district. It's just a normal maintenance routine that you're always going to have to do. But some of the sites do have, for example, for an easy explanation, rubber matting. Rubber matting is like, you know, it is the premium surface that you want to use. It is, but it is 16 times the cost of fiber. And just so you know, um, there, uh, there is some rubber matting in, in the district that is in dire need of repair. And one thing about rubber matting that you always got to think about is that, um, They haven't perfected the science yet. So what you have to do is you have to spray it every two years to keep it under warranty for ultraviolet lighting. And the thing is, is to do an average rubber matting playground structure is over $3,000 just to spray it. It takes two coats. Just for spraying. This is just a maintenance cost. You know, if it was up to me, would I go with rubber matting? Absolutely. You know, it is the premium thing to do. But just take that bill there and multiply it times 7, and you'll get an idea. You know, because some of our playground structures are in big enclosures. You know, usually when you're using rubber matting, you're using a small enclosure, like a Kodango setting, because it's just that expensive.

[1398] SPEAKER_27: Is that it, Ms.

[1398] Nancy Thomas: Thomas? You said that we replaced two structures, but I think the one at Bunker or Birch Grove Primary was removed because it was over the Hetch Hetchy Water main, is that correct?

[1418] SPEAKER_24: We are installing a new structure over at Bunker. It's going to happen over a break, because it was approved, I think, last year by this

[1427] Nancy Thomas: Right, so what I'm wondering is have we replaced structures already or have we put new structures in? I saw one at Music that was brand new. Was that a new structure or a replacement?

[1443] SPEAKER_24: I checked and Vanner, there was a major, I didn't count how many structures, but I think it was seven. You spent like $300,000 and you installed new at multiple sites. I didn't give you the new structures. I just gave you what needed repair. But with the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, there are some problems. We're working through that. But I've already had a meeting with their board. And the structure is going to go in fine. It's not interfering with anything. So we're OK there. And they're fine with us doing that. Mr. Rodriguez?

[1477] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah. pull the item. We have it under new business. I thought we already discussed it, so normally that would come back. I know, but it doesn't matter. It's there. I was going to pull the item, but since we're discussing it now, when we went out to the community for the bond, we said that one of our priorities at the top was safety. I think in a case like this, we lean on staff to tell us, what is it you want us to do? We want to make sure our kids are safe. So I lean on the side of replacing as many structures as we have to, to make sure everything's safe. Now, if we have a site that has some structures that are in very good shape, and then we replace a couple others, then it's going to look kind of tacky. So the least we could do is maybe paint or at least paint the old ones or something so that they look halfway that they're new. But so are we going to discuss this again? I mean, it's on the agenda. But basically, we're having a discussion now. So I'm fine with your recommendation. It's important for us. You're the person that we lean on, staff, to let us know. You're the one that's out there. If we have a state inspector come in and say, look, this isn't very good, you need to replace it with Vanner. So we're leaning on you to make sure that we replace any structure that's even a small bit unsafe to make sure that our kids are safe.

[1584] SPEAKER_24: But what, if I could say something else, what really set this off was I have done multiple inspections at every site. And I fenced off and shut off. play structures that I wasn't comfortable with. And of course, that upset the principals. And what I said was, I mean, our first priority is the safety of the students. And I think if we were going to be fair, I think what we should do first is any site that doesn't have a new play structure, because there are sites that do have new play structures, we should think about getting them a new play structure first. Because I don't imagine you guys are going to do the, the full amount, but that would be my suggestion. But if anyone wants to see these reports, I'm not kidding you, it was the most thorough report I'd ever seen. I have at least 300 pages. And it gives you an idea, because when I say something's wore out, when I was out there doing the walk with the guy and all the protective coating was gone, he said, what I could do is I could dismantle the whole place structure. I could take it down to an auto body shop, and they get sandblasted and then powder coated. You know, that's a great idea, but it's like, it costs more than the play structure by the time it's done. And the thing is, is any time you sandblast any metal that's been galvanized, galvanized prevents rusting, it sandblasts the galvanizing right off of it. And what people don't understand with play structures is it's not so much what you can see that's the problem, It's what you can't see, because the main footings, they have interior metal. And we live by the bay. I guarantee it's rusted. But that's one.

[1691] SPEAKER_22: Thank you. If I may? I couldn't find my request to speak button. One of the things I want to share, you'd mentioned that shutting down play structures and principals being upset. I think principals understand that, but I think that what they would like to have is an answer when's it going to get repaired by? Because otherwise, we're putting principals in a position where they're having to say to a community member, I don't know, and I'm not sure when it's going to be fixed. And that puts my principals against the wall. And I'd like to avoid that. So I think that in the future, if I need to change policy or administrative regulation, I'm happy to do that. But when we close down the play structure, we should have a date. that's posted right along with it that says, will be new by X time frame. I think that saves me that brain damage. And I just think of the kids walking up and all of a sudden they can't access it. So that's something I want you to be very aware of. And I think that we have to have a better answer so principals can have a better answer to their community. So just my perspective on that. OK.

[1761] SPEAKER_19: Ms. Crocker. I just wondered the thought, something that you said that I think is really important to underline. We can think about place structures as being a structure, or we can think about places where activities take place. And it doesn't have to be all in one area. In fact, in some respects, you need to have it within supervision view. But if you can break up the activities so the kids are not on top of each other, it's a plus, too. So I love your thought about having the walls, having separate things. So having everything in one place looks awfully sexy in the catalog, but it may not be the best thing to do for a school. I like the fact that you're looking at that, and I think that when we have this discussion with the principals that that's, and with the, with the, with the parents that are there too, because they know what the kids like. The kids know what they like, and make sure that we have sort of equity that's happening. I, I don't know if the play structures were paid for by the district, the new ones, or if they were paid by, by parent groups. And if parent groups have paid for it, then I would hesitate to penalize that school for having parents that did the work and, and so I don't know. So I think we need to look at the history of it.

[1834] SPEAKER_24: I'm in total agreement and does everyone here know what is the most popular play structure in the district? Monkey bars? Swing set. So if you, you know, really want to impact, you know, the students in a positive way, think more in the lines of swing sets and stay away from any type of bridge structure. Bridges, like when they stand on it and swing, they haven't perfected that design. And most of our play structures, the problems are with the bridge. OK. Ms.

[1869] Nancy Thomas: Thomas. I also tend to agree that perhaps instead of replacing one for one the structures we have, that we take a look overall and have some smaller freestanding structures, maybe two of them that take the place of one that's current, that kind of thing. I noticed at Kennedy that there were two play structures close to each other, and that did pretty much the same thing, so it might be better to look at options instead of two individual structures to have maybe one bigger structure a couple smaller structures. So I agree with Ms. Crocker that we should look and have the principals talk about various options within whatever budget we approve. OK.

[1919] SPEAKER_27: So item F should go very, very quick then, right? Because I think we've discussed at least that item. So let's move on to superintendent's report item B, please.

[1928] SPEAKER_22: OK. Stay close, OK? Stay close. Thank you, President Nguyen, members of the board, ladies and gentlemen. I want to draw your attention to the wish list document in your packet, the formatted 12.2.16. And I think this is a great segue into this next one from the last conversation, which is really this idea of let's ask schools. Let's ask schools what they need, what they're hearing from their community. And principals went through the process of trying to prioritize three categories. And what you have here is I think pretty meager requests, things that they need, things that are, there's some things in here that are interesting, but it's not anything that's like asking for a Lamborghini or asking for something that is outside of the realm of reasonableness. And I asked them to prioritize it and give the board some options. And you certainly can scroll through those pages, but I'd like to draw your attention to the last page, which kind of gives you, kind of at a glance, total by priority. And certainly it'd be great to get all of it for all schools, but I definitely, at minimum, strongly recommend at least approval of priority one items to get things rolling. And I would like to caveat that with including a timeline to get that stuff in place by next school year. so that we can get these things somewhat expedited and in place to send the right message that we are listening to schools. And I think that there's a lot of things out there. There's other always competing priorities. But I look at the prices by schools, and I look at how many kids they have. These are reasonable requests. And I just would like to, as promised, I try to get you the three columns, three priorities. as little or as much as you're able to do, but I think that priority one for me would be great to see support for, but I'm happy to answer any questions about what's on here, or if there's, I know there were some questions about is there things we can handle through another fund, a different way, but we wanted to get these, even if they get funded at a different source, I think it gives you a flavor of kind of what are some of the wants and needs desires from our school sites. I know we have two principals here. I'd be glad to answer any questions about their wish lists, because I know they just like coming to board meetings. But I'm going to single them out. But at that point, I'd just like to open it up to any questions that I could answer, or the principals could answer, or staff.

[2105] SPEAKER_27: Yeah, let me start, and then we'll go to Ms. Crocker. I have a question. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can I?

[2111] SPEAKER_19: Oh, I'm sorry.

[2111] SPEAKER_27: Yeah. So, I, I like the, the first priority concept. however, it's, there's a, a wide range of, of cost of the priorities. And so, I'm, I'm wondering if it's prudent to sort of set a baseline, sort of an equalized baseline based on enrollment. So that, that way schools that are only requesting $20,000 worth of, for their first priority, in comparison to schools that are requesting $50,000 or $200,000, can have some semblance of, okay, well, if we set a baseline, then they can perhaps have their first priority and, and maybe perhaps their second priority, but it gets everyone to sort of a reasonable amount. but then to ensure that everyone has their first priority taken care of?

[2160] SPEAKER_22: If the board were to say not to exceed a certain amount, we certainly could put it into a formula that would be based on enrollment, they'd get a proportion of that money based on number of kids, that way there's some fairness. That's pretty easy for us to do mathematically. But if you were to say to us, the total shouldn't exceed this, this is your proportion, what can you get for that? I think we could figure that out.

[2181] SPEAKER_27: Yeah, I just, in this, with the priority model, I just see it as kind of penalizing schools that were modest or humble with the request. Right. And so, maybe.

[2192] SPEAKER_22: And they would say fund it all. Yeah. Probably.

[2195] SPEAKER_27: Ms. Crocker.

[2196] SPEAKER_22: Yes.

[2197] SPEAKER_19: I'm wondering whether we have a new procedure today with what's happening. And I've accessed your curb appeal wish list. The audience cannot see that. Is there some way that we can bring that up? Can we pull it up over there? So that they can have a chance to see it?

[2213] SPEAKER_22: I think, Larry, can you help us with that?

[2215] SPEAKER_19: OK. So just so that there's some sort of ability to know what we're talking about. Absolutely. Thank you. The second piece is that I think that I love the wish list, but I think We were talking about safety as being the one issue. Some of these things are not safety. Some of them are not curb appeal. Some of them have to do with things that are not visible immediately. So I think we need to be clear in terms of what we think the priority should be in terms of selection. I know I'm looking at the high school, and there's a lot of stuff that has to do with the classroom, McGregor, things in the classroom. And as much as these are important, We're talking here about curb appeal. So maybe that should be sort of the level. Okay. Should we do it?

[2260] SPEAKER_27: Okay. Ms.

[2262] Nancy Thomas: Thomas? I tend to agree that we should be equitable in terms of how we parse out the amounts so as not to penalize a school that is being more conservative. I wonder how much money we have in Measure B. And it seems to me that if these are capital expenditures that would fit into Measure B, that we should expend the rest of the money out of Measure B. Mr. Richards, do you have an amount left? Measure B, the old Measure B. I think we have money left. So I mean, I would suggest that we spend all of Measure B money, that's way old money to start with, whatever money we set aside. And then when we get to that point and make a motion, I think to the extent that the money can come out of Measure G, I think we should do that because when we talk about the landscaping and painting, that's what we approved out of the Russian money. We didn't approve other types of this kind of stuff out of the Russian money.

[2347] SPEAKER_22: If I could clarify something that was said earlier. When I asked principals to put this together, it really was framed around a wish list, not necessarily curb appeal only. So I don't want to fault them for that. I think what I asked them was really, what would ask your parent groups what they would say your school needs to help with curb appeal. That was certainly part of it. But I don't think it was exclusive to curb appeal. So I want to be really honest about that. Would you guys say that's accurate? So that's probably my fault that it wasn't clear and we didn't have a real definition for curb appeal. But that wasn't their fault.

[2390] SPEAKER_27: OK. Member Preciado.

[2393] SPEAKER_26: So my first question is that where is the funds coming from? in terms of, I know we said it could come from different. I'm okay with that. I just want to know where it's coming from. And then, I like that idea of, in terms of, here's the amount, and then to be based off of, so a school that has more students would get more access, but it could also be needs, so that it makes it a little harder in terms of, maybe a school that's bigger might have Less of a need I don't know. I think that. I think that it should be just a wish list and not necessarily curb appeal. I'm OK with having that like you asked for what the community what parents and the site folks would want. So I think I'm OK with it remaining a broader wish list.

[2456] SPEAKER_27: Member Rodriguez.

[2463] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. I was thinking about $10 a student, which comes out to $600,000 approximately for the total. And so if that fits into our budget, So I'm comfortable talking about the amount of money. As far as the wish list itself, I think that's something that staff and the principals should put together and it's based on community input and working together with site council and they come up with what they feel is their priority. But the amount of money, I think $10 a student to me is fair. assuming that the $600,000 is something that can come from monies that, if that's a fair figure. So that's my feeling on it. But as far as talking about the priority itself, I'm excited to see what they're putting down. But that would be up to the site, I feel, to put together.

[2527] SPEAKER_22: And if I may clarify, and that's kind of what I ask the principals to do is go through with their site councils and make sure that before they sent these to me that if the only thing they got was priority one or priority one and two, are they comfortable with that? And I think that's kind of the exercise. Would either of you like to explain kind of how you might have framed this with your community? Just in the regard to, that's what you get for sitting on the end. You're sitting on the end. Rochambeau. So if you could describe kind of how, and I think all principals are pretty much on the same page with how they approached it.

[2566] SPEAKER_05: planning to speak tonight, but sure, I'd be happy to. And I wanted to mention that the per pupil works except for a school like McGregor with a low student population. So the process that I went through and I believe all principals went through a similar one with our ELAC site council and with our parent groups really just started the conversation around wish lists and curb appeal, other things that they may have been working toward as a parent group, a PTA for years but haven't been able to raise the money. And so then we listed all of those and at my school, then we actually voted and prioritized and then we approved it at the ELAC meeting and then at site council as well. Is that similar, Pam?

[2622] SPEAKER_27: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Thomas.

[2625] Nancy Thomas: Well, you stole my thunder because I was going to mention McGregor site. And so it could be a simple matter of giving up percentage weighting, increasing Greger a little bit, and decreasing some of the others a little bit, just to be fair.

[2642] SPEAKER_27: So you're going to bring back a more revised version, knowing that?

[2647] SPEAKER_22: I really would like the board to take action. Because if we can at least give me a limit, I can come back with a modified implementation plan. I just think that right now we're still I'm presenting the information. I'm open to some discussion about that. I just think that we've already asked the schools to prioritize. Is it on the agenda? And it is on the agenda, I believe, is it?

[2671] SPEAKER_27: OK. Yeah, we'll get to it when we get to the agenda. Thank you. Sorry. Can we hold off on that?

[2675] SPEAKER_26: I was just going to say we can't do the motion on anything here because this is a report.

[2679] Bowen Zhang: OK.

[2679] SPEAKER_26: Right.

[2681] SPEAKER_22: If there's not any other clarifying questions, I think that concludes my portion of the report this evening. President Nguyen.

[2688] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. We do not have any comments on bondage.

[2691] SPEAKER_22: We have an answer on Measure B. Yes.

[2694] SPEAKER_25: So Measure B started the year with $55,000. It currently has about $30,000 encumbered. We are still, the board may recall when Measure G got started, there was a litany of old DSA projects that were never cleared out of DSA and we still have architects working through that They've done two batches and they're working on a third batch now I think we still have 23 projects left that they're still going through the certification process on so we're using up the old measure B funds to close the measure B projects, but we It, right now, it looks like we'll have about 25,000 left after that's finished, left in measure B. And that'll be the end of measure B. Thank God, it's 15 years old.

[2733] SPEAKER_27: Yeah, good. Thank you. We do not have any comments for non-agenda items. So, on to new business A, board policy administration regulation 1312.3. Is this for Ms. Ferletti? Go ahead.

[2749] SPEAKER_11: Good evening. This evening I come forward with one of our board policies that needs some updating. As you know, we've been in the process of reviewing all board policies and this one specifically relates to the uniform complaint procedures. Just to highlight, we're continuing the same practice of having blue and red and there's some markouts where it shows what exactly is our new language that we're adding so that we are in alignment and in compliance with the recommendations from California School Boards Association. These edits are also in compliance with Office for Civil Rights and also with the California Department of Education. To highlight, the uniform complaint process is essentially any complaint that focuses on alleging district violations of state and federal laws. It also relates to discrimination, bullying, harassment. And our AR, State Administrative Regulations, point to highlighting and posting notification of who the complaint officer is. It is myself. It is the Department of Human Resources with myself as the Assistant Superintendent, the Uniform Complaint Officer. So I come forward to get any edits or recommendations and hopefully have your approval this evening.

[2831] SPEAKER_27: Ms. Thomas.

[2832] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, I had a few questions. I'll just give them and then maybe you could answer them. The first one is, what does it mean to have unlawful discrimination as opposed to any other type of discrimination? And I noticed somewhere in the AR or the board policy, it states that a complaint can be a verbal complaint, so that if it is fitting one of the items that's covered under the uniform complaint that a verbal complaint needs to be considered a uniform complaint and then the policy and the AR, how we handle it follows. Can you clarify those two things? Sure.

[2879] SPEAKER_11: If you see, I guess, page 17 of 301, which is the whole board packet, on page 17 it highlights unlawful discrimination is particularly in the areas that are identified by the state as under review. So it could be in free and reduced price meals, nutrition programs, but it also highlights discrimination of protected groups, which would be or protect the groups of our students or our employees. And so any of that would be under the unlawful discrimination that would violate federal laws or state laws. In terms of a verbal complaint and the district's obligation to investigate it, I think particularly if we have a parent who is unable to write a written complaint, But if it is in the area, it's verbalized to a principal or to an administrator or to one of our employees, that would then come to me as the officer to review and then to investigate it, even if it is not formally written on any kind of a form or a piece of paper. We do have some parents, we have the obligation to also support our parents. that may not be able to write it out. We also have an obligation that parents who, a population in our school district, that if it's 15% or more of a primary language other than English, we have the obligation to have the uniform complaint process and procedures translated into the primary language for our district in Spanish. And so this would also be translated and posted, not just on our website, but also at the school sites.

[2981] Nancy Thomas: So for example, one of the areas that's covered under the uniform complaint is the LCAP. If a member, a citizen's come forward and complains and says you're not following the law or the codes, you know, around the LCAP and he or she does that verbally, are we required then in that case also to consider that that's a uniform complaint and work with that individual to answer the complaint?

[3013] SPEAKER_11: Yes, and so that's one of the new additions that's now highlighted. So if you look at, I'm looking for it. It does highlight that now with the LCAP, we do have an obligation to investigate. I believe we would also investigate just if it comes here forward as public comments and it's for staff follow up. But it is also highlighted in these new additions by CSBA that that would also be reviewed and investigated.

[3047] Nancy Thomas: So even if it's a verbal complaint by a member of the public, we would have to treat it as a uniform complaint if it has to do with not Fulfilling the law regarding me, okay?

[3058] SPEAKER_11: Correct, and I'm looking at page 29 so let me yes, so is the or complaint

[3065] SPEAKER_27: By treating as a uniform complaint, are we making an accommodation, or shall we treat, I don't think it's written as that we treat every oral complaint as a uniform complaint.

[3076] SPEAKER_11: Correct, it doesn't, and then also there are other types of complaints, such as the Williams complaint that would follow the Williams complaint procedures, but I'm looking at page 29. Under G, right. Yes. Yes. So this speaks to the board's requirement to adopt and annually update the LCAP in a manner that includes meaningful engagement of parents, students, and other stakeholders in the development. So we would look at if there is an allegation of not having enough input by a parent student. But in terms of a verbal complaint, it would have to highlight in some of these areas. and also if the parent is illiterate and cannot read or write it, then we would have to support that parent with putting it in writing.

[3130] SPEAKER_27: Yeah. Okay. No more speakers. Do we have a motion?

[3135] SPEAKER_19: So moved.

[3136] SPEAKER_27: Second. Moved by Ms. Crocker, second by Ms. Rodriguez.

[3142] Cary Knoop: Vote please.

[3152] SPEAKER_27: All yeses. Thank you. Item B, job description, elementary director of teaching and learning. Is this Ms. Williams again?

[3165] SPEAKER_11: This evening we come forward with a revised job description. As you know, we had a vacancy due to a promotion of one of our administrators who was a director in educational services. This new position is essentially revised to focus on elementary education, the supervision of elementary principals, and would take the place of the old position. It is the same pay scale, it's the same number of days. At this point, this person would be working under the current superintendent or his designee. And just to highlight, it's looking at focusing on English language learners and also the assessment and curriculum and instruction as it relates to elementary education.

[3217] Ray Rodriguez: I'd like to make a motion that we accept item B. Okay, we have a motion by Member Rodriguez.

[3222] SPEAKER_27: I second.

[3224] Nancy Thomas: I'll second it.

[3225] SPEAKER_27: Second by Ms. Thomas. Five ayes. Item C, first interim report. Mr. Richards.

[3252] SPEAKER_25: I failed to ask you how we're going to do our PowerPoints.

[3258] SPEAKER_27: You do it on the laptop and I switch it over.

[3298] SPEAKER_22: I'm going to take a short bio break.

[3300] SPEAKER_27: While he's setting up? It'll take two minutes while Mr. Richards is setting up his computer? Yeah. Sure. Thank you.

[3316] SPEAKER_22: So that isn't on the agenda, but I'll bring it back in January.

[3550] SPEAKER_25: Good evening. So tonight we take a look at our first interim report. Behind me. The For the first interim have a little bit of. Sort of a different look than we've had over the past couple of years, because as We've continued over the past couple of years declining in our enrollment. We generally have had pretty significant contributions of state aid to help balance things out. And we're beginning to reach the end of the state largesse in that area. So our unrestricted revenue is down some this year, most significantly in the state revenue piece, which is only 5% of the budget. But it's down by over $2.5 million from last year because the one-time mandate money that was well over $3.5 million last year is down to $1.2 million in the current school year. And so it's driving our revenue number down to about $46 million after we factor in the contribution to the restricted side of the general fund, whereas our expenditures are right about where they were last year at about $49.7 million. So we've got a pretty wide grouping with regard to our expenditures, the overwhelming majority of which is still salaries and benefits as is generally true in any educational institution. We're at about 86 and change percentage-wise with regard to our percent that's salaries and benefits. That is up some as a percentage of the unrestricted general funding comparison to prior years. Overall, we've got about another 2% of the budget in books and supplies and about 10% in services and other operating expenses. That is a combination of contracted services, utilities, and other types of expenses that are not books or people. We have a very small capital outlay budget on the unrestricted side. We do have some other outgo that and then subtracted from that number is indirect costs, which is actually money that comes back to the general fund from the restricted side for the cost of administering those programs. The other outgo is the funds that are contributed to the ROP based on the old funding model that we've had for many years. The Interfund transfers out of $241,000 of the transfers to the Child Development Fund and to adult education. Overall status, then, of the general fund on the unrestricted side is a net loss. And what's keeping it from being a much bigger net loss, actually, is an inter-fund transfer in that's part of the revenue. And I should have highlighted that on the first slide, that we budgeted out of Fund 17 for roughly $3.5 million. So that is basically plugging what would otherwise have been state aid to balance out the budget to keep us going for the current school year. For the ending balance of $3,095,000, roughly 2 thirds of that, or $2 million, is the reserve for economic uncertainties. The rest of it is other grants and donations that haven't fully submitted an expenditure budget for the current year, and about a half a million dollars of lottery that we've been carrying over. On the restricted general fund side, this is where our categorical programs are, as well as special education and the routine restricted maintenance fund. About 46% of the money in the restricted side is actually contributions from the unrestricted side. The entire routine restricted maintenance fund is funded by a 3% contribution from the unrestricted general fund to the restricted general fund to operate that program as mandated by the State Facilities Act. The rest of the contribution is what's balancing out special education. We do get about $2.5 million, just under $2.5 million from federal aid for Title I, Title II, Title III, and federal special education, about $3.7 million in state restricted revenue. And that includes the restricted portion of state lottery. It also includes the after school program grants that fund the after school programs at two of our schools. Our expenditures on the restricted side, much like the unrestricted side, are overwhelmingly salaries and benefits. You might notice that employee benefits is a much bigger chunk than you've been used to seeing. We talked about this at the closing of the books, that with the state, one of the changes the state made is pushing through to the districts to record their contribution to STRS. So we receive a state revenue chunk in the exact same amount as the amount of the benefits that is the state contribution to STRS. So it has somewhat artificially inflated our employee benefit costs because that particular portion of the STRS contribution that looks like it's all on the restricted side is actually the state's contribution for all of the STRS members, whether they're funded out of the unrestricted general fund or the restricted general fund, the state's portion all shows up in a categorical program. So it's making that employee benefit pie suddenly grow rather dramatically to make it look like it's much bigger than it otherwise would have been. But again, a very small percentage, about 4% of the restricted general fund is for books and supplies, and about 15% for services and other operating expenditures. That includes all special education contracted services, including non-public schools and transportation, as well as any contracted services that our own maintenance staff is unable Restricted general fund, as usually is, is basically flat over the course of the year. We contribute enough to make sure that the programs end with an ending balance of zero or above. But basically, they're spending down whatever carryover they had in the prior year. They're projecting to end the year at about $190,000 less than they started the year as of this time. That's pretty normal for first interim report. The other funds of the district are all projected to end either with a zero balance because they basically budgeted all their revenue for the year or with a positive ending balance. Adult ed is basically running flat, as is child development. Child nutrition is running at about the same size they've been, about $2.3 million. They have a very slight budgeted net fund increase. It's only about $8,500. That's a pretty normal budget for that department. The special reserve. transfer out that's being used to balance the general fund in the current year, which will leave it with a balance of about $2.6 million a year. And then the building fund, we did sell $18 million worth of bonds on July the 13th, so we do have a new revenue in there for this year. That is the last series of Measure G. So we've now fully sold all the bonds. We took advantage of an extremely favorable market to come in with an average interest rate that's down in the twos, which is pretty incredible for 20 or more. And so we have that fund ready to go as we prepare our project list moving forward to the next summer. The Capital Facilities Fund, that's what we commonly know as developer fees, is projecting a very healthy ending balance as we continue to get developer fees out of some of the projects that are going on in town. The special reserve for capital outlay doesn't have any new money coming in because we're not planning on selling anything else at this point, but we are spending some money this year to various projects that the board previously approved in March. The bond interest and redemption fund is what pays off the bonds. The tax collector's office assesses the property taxes. The county treasury actually completely controls fund 51, which is why it just shows a net zero, a budget and revenue and expense to be the same amount. Fund 67 and 68, which combine to form Fund 67 in our state report, are our post-retirement benefit fund and our property and liability self-insurance fund. Together, they carry about a $1.8 million fund balance. They're both projected to assess out approximately what they cost to spend in expenditures in any given year. And now we get to where our concerns are. may recall that at budget adoption, we were still very unsure what summer was going to do as far as student yield with regard to the construction that's been going on all over town. And we had some wildly diverse numbers from some significant gains to some significant losses to basically flat. And so we ran with the middle and we went with flat. And unfortunately, we have not yielded a significant number of students yet out of the new housing. And our enrollment is actually down this year from last year. Last year at C-BEDS Day, we were at 6,013 students. We are actually at 5,846 for this school year. That's a drop of 167 students, which is a pretty significant, about 2 and 3 quarter percent drop. have projected a similar drop now into our average daily attendance. Our average daily attendance last year was 5,819 on 6,013 students enrolled as of CBEDS day, which was just under 97%. We're using that same percentage to project us forward, which would put us at about 5,657 units of ADA for the current school year. As you can see, since 2000, we've been kind of on a declining path as we've kind of watched our enrollment go down. What is nice is that our average attendance rate, which back then was only 94 and a third percent, has gone up. We've been between 96 and 97.5% in each of the last seven years. So we've done some significantly good work with regard to keeping our attendance up. And so we're continuing a very positive trend in that regard. But overall, we are down about 1,000. 20 students since 2000. So that then casts some significant problems for the multi-year projection, which, as you recall it, a budgeted option was in a very low place. It's now in a lower place because our projected enrollment actually continues. Well, it declined further this year, which then doesn't affect this year's funding, but actually affects next year's funding. Next year, our new demographic study indicates that we actually will have a very slight gain in the number of students from where we are this year. Unfortunately, in a year when you're coming off of a significant decline, if you don't gain more than the number that you declined, your revenue goes down while your number of students you're serving goes up. That is that sort of bucket point that we talked about last year. potentially happening this year. And it does appear that we are at that point in the current school year, where next year will be that year where we start to go up, but revenue will continue to go down for one more year until it catches up. So that's going to cause a significant hit to the bottom line. And right now, projecting absolutely no changes, no cuts, no adjustments, no anything. It's a little bit different than what you're used to seeing in my presentations, because I will usually try to forecast out exactly where I think we're going to end up. But basically taking adopted budget and rolling it, if we were to do absolutely nothing over the next four months and nothing changed and our enrollment continued to decline and we did nothing, we would end up in what I call the worst case scenario of potentially having a third year out with an undesignated fund balance of a negative number of $8 million. I do not anticipate what will be at that number. I have already warned the county that this is a worst case scenario number and It was done on purpose so that we could very well see just what it means to actually do nothing and let everything roll when we're in a declining enrollment environment. So there are going to be some changes that we will have to do between first and second interim, and the superintendent will take us through some new exercises that he's Bring forward in the future on that situation. So where does that put us? That puts us at a qualified certification. A qualified certification tells the county that we may not meet our financial obligations over the course of the current or the next two years. We are not negative even though that negative number at the end of the look may make you think that we should be certifying negative. We are not in a negative situation as the district. A negative certification means that we will not be able to meet our cash obligations in the current or the subsequent fiscal year. I have run the cash projection even with our worst case scenario we do not go into a negative cash situation in the current or the next school year so at that this point we are not negatives lead certified, we are qualified. Which gives us some time to do exactly what we would normally do in this situation, which is between first and second interim, when we receive the new budget from the state for fiscal 17-18, we bring all of our adjustments forward and these will be coming forward to the board when the state releases its budget. The state budget update is on the day of our next board meeting. So I will be in Sacramento getting all of the information, and I will be bringing to you hot off the presses on that Tuesday night. We'll do a presentation. I'll be bringing it live right in from Sacramento as soon as I get back. So we'll be doing that at our very next board meeting, talking about the January budget. And so the county will review our self-certification as qualified to see if they agree. And in the meantime, we'll begin building our process to deal with our declining enrollment. I mentioned we're down 1,800 students plus since 2000. 648 of that decline has been in the past five years. So we're in a pretty significant situation. And when we look at what the factors are that are under it, and for all of the, oh, my friend Joe has a student in private school that you may hear out there, the single thing that has been driving us the most has been the city birth rate. Our yield rate at kindergarten compared to the birth rate is actually fairly consistent as a percentage. But our birth rate five years to 10 years ago is substantially lower than it was 10 years to 15 years ago. Therefore, our kindergartners for the past five years have been on a very steady decline over the course of time. And we've also seen that in the current year with our TK count. Our TK count is actually down quite a bit in the current year as well. But in the meantime, We have other forms that are in the report, including the cash flow for the next two years, which does show that we will end with a positive cash balance, which is why we're able to certify qualified and not negative. We are meeting our requirements under No Child Left Behind. That's not a problem as far as meeting our maintenance of effort. And our criteria and standards information that goes into the detail of looking at some of the numbers behind the numbers that the county reviews when they're reviewing our report. Those are also included in the big packet that you have. And that is the end of the presentation. I want to thank Kim, Carol, and Sarah for all of their assistance as we were preparing this document. And I'll turn it over to the board for questions about 14 minutes before public comment.

[4460] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. We do have a speaker for this item. So Ms. Cindy Parks.

[4474] Cindy Parks: I don't know. This is a little too close to you guys tonight. Board members, your organizational core values state that our district must be physically stable and must maintain adequate reserves for economic uncertainty. In March of this year when the second interim was given, the district was deficit spending approximately $800,000. The end of June when the 2016-2017 budget was unveiled, 3.6 million of the 4 million transferred to reserve fund 17 seven months earlier was then being transferred to balance the budget. I guess that's the only reason the district was able to have a positive rating. The projected layoffs that were projected on pages 167, 169, and 171 of that budget were never mentioned or discussed. On October 4th, when the 2015-2016 actuals were reported, miraculously, the district had approximately $1 million in carryover. Flash forward to tonight. On December 20th, you have before you the first interim report with only a qualified certification, meaning the district may not meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year and subsequent two years. With 6 out of 11 standards not being met, 9 of 16 supplemental information that you had to receive, you received a yes for, and an additional fiscal indicators that were 2 of 9, that number was a little better. The issue used numerous times through the report were some reductions anticipated under the previous administration that budget adoption had not been acted upon. Please clarify. What are those anticipated reductions under the previous administration that were not acted upon? Perhaps the layoffs that were spelled out in the 16-17 budget that I referenced earlier. If so, the end of June was too late to make those changes. In conclusion, Newark Unified has a few months to contemplate its financial situation before the second interim is prepared. What services can you continue to financially support? Some of you have been down this road before, and I'm sure you wished you'd never been down here again. However, continued deficit spending, excessive hiring, excessive pay increases for management, and poor curriculum choices, along with a lack of increased enrollment, is a reason for the current situation. Thank you.

[4615] SPEAKER_27: Thank you, Ms. Parks. Board members? Let me start. I have to, I have one question, Mr. Richards. In reference to child nutrition, and I, we show a balance of one point something million dollars projected. Are we in compliance with, as far as the, that reserve is concerned? Because I, I understand that there's a maximum that you can carry over in, in child nutrition.

[4641] SPEAKER_25: There is a maximum that you can carry over in child nutrition. And we ride, ride around at that number on an annual basis. So yes, we have been in compliance. We haven't been dig for being out of compliance. However, um, Mary also has, has necessary use the fact that she's on the high end of that number so that if she has equipment, she needs to replace it. She didn't anticipate a budget development. She's ready to be able to utilize that if she needs to. And she brings forward a request for a change if she does. Okay. Thank you.

[4669] SPEAKER_27: Mr Priscilla.

[4671] SPEAKER_26: So in your, um, PowerPoint presentation, you mentioned doing budget development in conjunction with the LCAP. Do you have an idea in terms of like the plan for how that's going to map out? And I only ask in terms of how we can get more involved and I know in the past it's been usually the budget is presented after the fact as opposed to being involved more early on in the process. So is there a plan for us to be able to provide input before March of next year?

[4713] SPEAKER_25: Yes. I mentioned we're going to be bringing a budget at least to the board in January. We will certainly take additional input from the board in January at that meeting. And then that's on the I want to say it's the 17th, is that board meeting? The Thursday prior to that, which is January the 12th, is actually the LCAP meetings of the three groups. And each of the board members has been assigned to one of the three groups. So if you are available that day on Thursday, I want to say 12, but I don't have a calendar in front of me, that Thursday in January. It's the Thursday of the first week that we're back from break. We will be having the meetings to get additional input with relation to the LCAP and how it interrelates with the budget as well. Thank you.

[4759] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Ms.

[4760] Nancy Thomas: Thomas. Last year we had, and maybe you're not the person to ask, but last year we had a quite detailed calendar for the LCAP development, and that included the LCAP advisory board or district advisory board in its makeup and its meetings. So maybe the superintendent can clarify Are we, is that schedule being developed?

[4788] SPEAKER_22: We have it and we have a sign up sheet for board members right here for the first segment.

[4793] Nancy Thomas: So I'll be getting to that later tonight. Is that for the meeting?

[4795] SPEAKER_22: For LCAP development, I know that Janet and I have been working on that calendar for LCAP development and we, I don't know if we have one to share with the board tonight but I know we're working on one.

[4808] Nancy Thomas: I'm talking about the District Advisory Committee, the formal committee that's been, that's mandated by the LCAP that has to have a majority of parents on it, and it has certain responsibilities that it's supposed to, and it should meet at least three times. And I haven't seen any information coming on whether that's being scheduled, and for example, last year, since it is a Brown Act committee, I, I don't recall seeing any minutes from last year. The results of the meetings. And they're supposed to be responding to questions. The superintendent's supposed to be responding to questions. Those are the requirements of the LCAP legislation that I think we need to make sure that we follow. And, and of course, last year we didn't see numbers associated with the LCAP until a few weeks before we were required to approve it. I look forward to seeing some kind of a first draft, and I hope that can come sometime in March or April, not in June.

[4878] SPEAKER_22: Actually, I could tell you that on January 12, 2017, May 30 to 11, 30, Newark Unified is holding a meeting for stakeholders to provide input as we begin drafting our 2017-18 local control accountability plan, along with district-side administrators, representatives from Newark's Board of Education, community bargaining units, teachers, students, community members. So I have that to share with you tonight that we are working on this year. I can get the information about last year. I don't have that in front of me, but we are working on that.

[4909] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. And I think with the first interim report, we always take it with a grain of salt. And, I mean, we are concerned about the qualified versus the positive. But it's not unheard of to be qualified at this junction. So we are definitely looking forward to what the governor has to reveal in mid-January and what the second interim will portray. Okay. No more comments or do we have a motion?

[4944] SPEAKER_26: I'll move to accept the first interim report.

[4946] SPEAKER_27: Okay. Moved by Member Persiado. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second by Member Crocker. Vote, please. Five yeses. Thank you. Item D, summary of donations.

[4975] Nancy Thomas: I move to accept. Second.

[4983] Cary Knoop: Vote please.

[4992] SPEAKER_27: Five yeses. donations. I'll just read it real fast. We have a donation of $100 to Newark Junior High School from Pauline and Young Kim for after school sports. A donation of $30 to Newark Junior High School by Sonny and Karen Gallegos for basketball. A donation of 24 free pizzas, four per month over a six month period to Graham Elementary. The donor is Pizza Italia located in Ardenwood Boulevard, Fremont for the principal pizza with scholars. A donation of $35 to Newark Junior High School from Nazarene Amak Yusuf and Mustafa Yusuf for basketball and donation of $300 to Bridgepoint High School from Alpha Delta Kappa for science class and a donation of $100 to special education by Marion Silva and to be used as needed.

[5050] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you for reading those.

[5052] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Next item. Item E, landscaping for all school sites.

[5058] SPEAKER_22: Mr. President? So Vince, or Brian, did you prepare this one? I'm going to pull them to the landscaping summary. Landscaping for all school sites, I think it's the summary report in the packet. It's a few pages in. Go ahead, Ryan.

[5091] SPEAKER_25: So what you have before you, we actually issued an RFP for the landscaping design services based on the information that had been previously brought to the board back in March. We received three responses, one of which was, surprisingly just over half the cost of the other two. And so when it was such a wide disparity, I'd go back and double check with the vendor to be sure that there wasn't some kind of an error or anything in that process. And indeed, there was not. And so we're recommending going forward, this particular vendor is one that I believe has been doing some work in Hayward. Is that correct? It's the same group from Hayward? And so they've been doing some good work up there. And so we're recommending that they be approved. There was a question from one of the board members with regard to the overall scope of the project. And if you recall back in March when we brought the grouping of items together, there was a budget that incorporated not only the landscaping but also the painting. And each of those were in sections of the overall budget. I believe the overall total budget for this portion of the project is approximately $1.9 million. Is that correct, John? That number's sticking in my head.

[5172] SPEAKER_08: I looked up into the budget numbers that are in the proposal, and there actually are lots of points to the McGregor-Whiteford review. So we'll need to look at that part of where the disparity arose. I don't think in the original numbers, McGregor-Whiteford was presented to the budget. Excuse me.

[5189] SPEAKER_19: Could you come up to the microphone so we can they can hear at home. Thank you.

[5196] SPEAKER_08: From the numbers that were presented in March, McGregor Whiteford wasn't accounted for in those, I don't believe. They're $285,000. So the budget numbers rose from 1.9 to 2.2. But at this point, they're only budget. So as we enter into design, we'll begin what's known as schematic design, where they really design to the budget. So if the budget needs to be adjusted back to the $2 million even, then that can still be accomplished, I guess, in an equitable fashion. All the school sites receive the proper level of work.

[5230] SPEAKER_25: OK, thank you.

[5232] SPEAKER_27: So this is the design fee, not necessarily the work. Correct. Go ahead, Mr. I'm sorry, Ms.

[5239] SPEAKER_19: Crocker, Ms. Crocker had it first. Oh, okay. That was my point, I think, is the fact, what percentage of the total amount that we spend is, is going to be design fee? And it looks like it's what? Ten. Five percent? About five percent. About five percent. Which is, which is very reasonable. So could you. Excuse me, I also went to a website to look at what they had. I'm just curious in terms of the kinds of approach they have. And do you have anybody that's local that we can go look at? Because when they design it, this is an artistic thing. It's more than just money. And so you want to make sure that they're setting up an environment that's going to be.

[5277] SPEAKER_08: I can look into specific projects that would be relatable to a school district. But we know they are doing work at Hayward for their parks. So I'll look into that and respond back to Brian.

[5290] SPEAKER_27: Ms. Thomas?

[5292] Nancy Thomas: You said, what was the 2.2 million you talked about? Was that for painting?

[5296] SPEAKER_08: No, no, that's for the landscaping work.

[5298] Nancy Thomas: So how much remains to be spent for painting out of the 4.1 million or whatever it is we have designated?

[5308] SPEAKER_08: There was $567,000 performed this past summer. So of that, I believe there was $2 million budgeted for painting. So remaining balance, depending on how bids come in, would be about 1.5.

[5320] Nancy Thomas: So you anticipate that all the rest of the painting can be done for 1.5 million because if we go out and get bids for this and the painting, I think the painting in my mind is a given. We've got to pay whatever it's going to cost to paint and what's left over is going to be for the landscaping, is that correct?

[5343] SPEAKER_08: The good news is, yes, that's correct. Well, actually, I'm not sure if the balance of the painting is going to be applied towards landscaping. I would defer to Brian.

[5350] SPEAKER_27: So let's not go too deep into the painting.

[5352] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, point of order. We're talking about the design. Yes. So we really need to focus on that if you don't mind.

[5358] Nancy Thomas: So anyway, my question relates to the design because it says that the cost, they're not going to give us cost estimates.

[5367] SPEAKER_08: There are estimates in the, I think it's the second page of the proposal. That's the budget number right now. So they won't be able to provide cost estimates until they actually complete a design. So usually you do a design or an estimate on the design at schematic design phase. Up until that point, really all you can use is square footage cost based on prior work that's been performed that's of a similar nature. I don't have the exact square footage cost, but that's how these budget numbers were arrived at. We looked at the frontage space and applied a square footage cost to that. And really, you can't do much better than that until you know exactly what types of materials and plants you'll be installing.

[5406] SPEAKER_27: I think the one thing that we have to be really aware of is we have other projects that will run concurrently with this, whether it's additional fencing or frontage or curb appeal. And we don't want to get into a scenario where we spent all this money on landscaping and then because we got to replace a fence, then landscaping gets ripped up and then, you know, so we, we've got to make sure that all these projects in some way communicate with each other and that it makes sense.

[5434] Nancy Thomas: Well, could I clarify something or get something clarified? Go ahead. When we approved the $4 million for painting and landscaping, there was a footnote that said this is for painting and landscaping. So the In my mind, the budget should be for painting and landscaping and.

[5455] SPEAKER_27: Right. Oh, no, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that, you know, on the wish list and other peripheral projects that.

[5462] Nancy Thomas: But this is the Russian money. The Russian money is dedicated to painting and landscaping. The other curb appeal, we have to decide where that money comes from. But it's not, shouldn't come from painting and landscaping. In other words, we shouldn't, in my mind, take away from the landscaping for curb appeal items because that was and won't be approved.

[5484] SPEAKER_27: I did not state that. I simply said because we have other projects that will come right on top of landscaping that we just have to be careful. It's just like if you're going to replace carpet in your house, right? don't be careful, don't paint or paint before you replace the carpets.

[5498] SPEAKER_08: Exactly. I'll start by answering your question, President Nguyen. We maintain a master activity schedule for our projects that are under our purview. So to the extent that we have control over those projects, we'll utilize that tool to help phase the project so they're not on top of each other. Along the same lines, the The painting projects will build, bid in advance of the landscaping projects. So there will be an opportunity there to understand what the savings on the painting projects will be. And if it's the desire of the board, that could be applied towards whatever, you know, whatever project you see fit. Right.

[5529] Nancy Thomas: When, when the, when the bid proposals go out for the landscaping, at that point we will give them a not to exceed that true?

[5539] SPEAKER_08: Or what? No, we, at that point, we, we do provide due diligence on the design side to ensure that the ultimate, the bids ultimately won't come in under over budget. And if we feel that they might be closed, we'll structure alternates to help create a safety valve to keep us under the budget.

[5554] Nancy Thomas: Okay, good. That, that was, that answers my concern. Okay, Gregus?

[5561] Ray Rodriguez: Just to piggyback on President Nguyen, the design Sometimes when a designer puts stuff together, if they've been told that there might be future projects coming, then they do it in such a way to where, for instance, if a fence is put in, that it doesn't mess up the landscaping that's done. I think that would be an important point that we are hopefully looking in the future as a safety to do fencing for some of the sites so that if that's something that might be anticipated that the designer would do it in such a way where if there was fencing put in that it wouldn't mess up the the actual architecture of the design.

[5620] SPEAKER_08: That's something we could provide to the designers that once the wish list is far enough along we could provide them with that list and I'll annotate it to indicate which projects may impact upon their award.

[5629] Bowen Zhang: Thank you.

[5630] SPEAKER_26: Member Casado? I had a question. As part of this design process, is it going to incorporate input from site leaders?

[5639] SPEAKER_08: Well, I think in understanding the way that they've structured their proposal, there will be input from the district, but it won't be opened up to committee. To come in about half of the other designers, they haven't included very much time in going out to committee. The professionals are able to recommend the best use of the rather limited budget for the frontage of the building.

[5661] SPEAKER_26: So if there's input from the district, maybe internally we can figure out a process to make sure that the site leaders are Take into consideration in terms of, because this is your site, right? So just because, yeah, so it's important to have that type of input.

[5677] SPEAKER_08: Absolutely agree. And I think as efficiently as possible that.

[5680] SPEAKER_26: And I do want to note, turn it on. I did want to note, this might be just a semantic, but in terms of a contract and language is important, the site's note, On page 188, it has Bunker Elementary School. That should say Birch Grove Primary. And then Milani should say Birch Grove Intermediate. Because I wouldn't want them to wiggle out of it by saying that that's not the site.

[5714] SPEAKER_08: That's not the site, absolutely. I think we can confirm that via the address of the site.

[5719] SPEAKER_26: I should make sure it's a language.

[5721] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Thank you. No more further comments? We have a motion.

[5727] SPEAKER_19: I move to accept.

[5728] SPEAKER_27: Moved by Member Crocker. I'll second. Second by member Thomas. Vote please. Five ayes. Next item. F, playground equipment. We do have some speakers on this item. Let's start with Suzanne Williams.

[5763] SPEAKER_15: Hello, my name is Suzanne Williams, and I'm a resident of Newark, and I'm a mother of two. My daughter is currently attending kindergarten at Kennedy, and I'm really excited to hear about making forward progress on the new playgrounds. But I was surprised to learn at the last meeting that there was no maintenance for the current playgrounds. And so I know you guys talked about it earlier in the meeting. And I just, you know, wanted to bring it up again that that's really important that we maintain the playgrounds because if they're not being maintained, the kids aren't safe. You know, that's really important. So thank you.

[5808] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Erica Rault.

[5820] SPEAKER_41: Good evening, my name is Erica Roll and I'm here with my daughter, Louise Roll. As a parent who leads many programs encouraging physical activity at Music Elementary, I am here today because you're discussing playgrounds, which is a subject very dear to my heart. We've had a damaged play structure in our lower grade playground for the past three years that students haven't been able to use. As a parent who's been involved with various school groups, I can tell you that the play structure has been the subject of various meetings. As the superintendent pointed out, parents are trying to figure out why is this structure not being repaired, why is it still here? I know there are many priorities which need to be addressed with limited funds, so you ask yourself where to invest to maximize the most benefits for our students. And playgrounds are so simple that they're often overlooked. because the foreseeable benefit is only exercise. However, there's new studies that link exercise to better cognitive function. John Rately, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School says, exercise helps produce a protein which is like the miracle girl for the brain. The protein encourages brain cells to grow, communicate, and interconnect in new ways. It sees physiological benefits that contribute to better memory and learning skills which help improve academic performance. The play structure also contributes to the psychological and emotional well-being of our students. It serves as an outlet for the daily stresses and frustrations they experience in the classroom. So they're more emotionally balanced. I mean, our students have so little time outside that they really need to make the most of that time. Out on the playground, children build their self-esteem by learning how to climb a new play structure, how to do a new flip without breaking their arm. And these physical accomplishments build their confidence, which transfers into the classroom. On a much simpler level, the playground is a conduit for creative thinking and to building social skills. That slide becomes that tower inhabited by pirates and children learn to interact with each other and they strengthen their communication skills and also their patience. Music is an inclusive school. We have special needs students in our mainstream classrooms replacing this damaged play structure with an inclusive play area would help these students feel as a part of our school community. So I thank you tonight for taking the time to discuss playgrounds and I hope that you will invest in this area. Thank you.

[5979] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Ms. Cindy Parks.

[6001] Cindy Parks: I wasn't going to talk about this item, but I just wanted to provide you with some clarification. So Measure G paid for some of the playground. The first year was approved in 2011. There was a block of time where we had the quick startup before Vanner came on board. And just to provide you with the numbers from the Measure G, 50,878 paid for playground at Milani, 21,196 for music, Then there was shilling 43,213, snow 43,663, and the renovation at Whiteford, which Mr. Rodriguez, you're in the picture, snap in the red ribbon, was 48,750. That totals 2,700. Just provides you with some numbers as what measure G paid for that very first summer after it passed.

[6054] Nancy Thomas: 207. 207,700. Thank you. Ms. Thomas. Good to know. Thank you very much. I have a question for staff. If we approve the entire 2.257 million or are not to exceed 2.257 million this evening out of Measure G, are there any other that you consider higher priority items that we will not be able to fund out of the bond? And if so, what are they?

[6094] SPEAKER_22: As far as playgrounds go, the only other one that I'm aware of that is not on the list is a potential preschool playground for Music Elementary. If we end up moving the preschool from Whiteford to Music to be part of that community, that's the only one that is not on the list. I think that if we were to approve an amount not to be exceeded, we would go back and rework the plan to be able to modulate for, can we repair some? Can we replace some? And is there a more kind of cohesive plan to go forward in a way that kind of captures the spirit of the board, which is, we've got to fix the ones. And in my mind, and although the board didn't say this, I think that we want to have some good working playgrounds at every site. And how do we start moving in that direction? And part of my thinking, too, is probably coming back with a clearer ratification once we're able to really get down to what each site would get and what that would look like. I don't know if you would add to that, Brian or Vince, but I think we've kind of got a little bit of indication from the board as far as how we should adjust. So I think, yes, we can still do it. I don't know. There's always going to be other priorities. I mean, this is always just a drop in the bucket.

[6189] Nancy Thomas: Well, what I was getting at, I guess I didn't explain myself, wasn't the play structures. It's if we do everything we want to do with the play structures up to 2.27, we have about $9 million or is it $12 million left in Measure G. Is there any critical items modular classrooms that we haven't considered yet that if we approve this, we, there's things that we absolutely need to do that we can't do because we've spent this money. That's the.

[6227] SPEAKER_27: Right, right. I see. Like, don't come back to us and say, hey, we need portable classrooms because we're, we're full, but we don't have any money because we spent on playgrounds.

[6234] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, that's the point, exactly. Okay.

[6237] SPEAKER_27: I mean, is that where we're at or is this money that we can feel comfortable approving and not be faced with?

[6244] SPEAKER_25: If we were actually faced with the situation of being all full, I'd be coming to the board with a proposal to utilize the developer fees to add classrooms because that's what those would be for because they're directly related to growth. Where we may have concerns with regard to some of our older portable classrooms is just the fact that they are nearing the end of their useful life in general. We've looked at them throughout the district. We do have some issues. But as we saw in the budget presentation, we've also been declining in enrollment. So not all of them are being utilized as classrooms anymore either. So we have some flexibility there. Setting the priority for the rest of the dollars beyond what the board originally did back in 2013, prior to my coming here, has always been at the will of the board. The board sets what those priorities are. So as we will continue to bring forward various items and the items that Superintendent Sanchez, when everybody put their priorities at the study session, I mean, there were a wide variety of things there, but the board sets the priorities for us, not the other way around. And if we get to that point, we eventually go back out to do additional work. There's other ways to fund it potentially.

[6318] Nancy Thomas: And then I, I'm sorry. I had a follow up question. Is that okay?

[6322] SPEAKER_27: Let me, let me, let me jump in and then we have two more and then we can come back to you. Is that okay? Or is it pertinent at this timeline?

[6328] Nancy Thomas: Well, it was kind of pertinent at this time. I wanted to ask if, if we do approve this amount of money can these playground structures be bid and come back and be built this summer?

[6345] SPEAKER_24: I think that's a realistic timeline. We'd have to hire more, you know, we have to plan it, you know, there's a whole planning stage and how do you guys want to go about picking the structures?

[6356] SPEAKER_27: So, and, and I was going to comment towards that and I would echo, um, and I'll get to you guys in a sec. I would echo member Thomas as far as approving a set amount, you know, that 2.2 and then not to exceed. Um, but I think this is a great opportunity for us to, to go back to our site leaders and our site stakeholders and really, I mean, we have a chance to kind of shift the paradigm of play structures or play spaces or social spaces, right? What if we went to each school site and if, I mean, the averages are coming out to be about $300,000 per site and if we told Kennedy or Schilling, you have this amount of money, Do you want to replace all your play structures as presented here and just swap old for new? Or do you want shade structures? Or do you want X, Y, Z instead but stay within the budget that we've given you? I think this will give our principals and the communities a real opportunity to really elevate and come up with really creative, innovative things rather than just replacing play structure for play structure.

[6426] SPEAKER_24: That's a good plan. The only thing we have to always remember is DSA. Sure. When we do that planning portion, you know, it's like a six month turnaround, you know, so if we go with something complicated like a sage structure, which you think would be easy, you know, uh, DSA, you know, usually we start getting into, but play structures in general or play structures in general need DSA approve as well. DSA, okay, that's a can of worms, is place structures are only required to have access review. And I've called DSA and I asked them, you know, because on the DSA website there is what is exempt page. And place structures are on there except for access review. So I asked the state DSA architect, would the certification letter after the installation of the the play structure, excuse me, be enough for access review? And she told me yes.

[6486] Nancy Thomas: So we're fine.

[6488] SPEAKER_24: John with Vanner called her, you know, and it's kind of a gray area because I contacted San Francisco Unified and they installed a boatload of play structures and the MOT director in there did not do any review. Okay. So

[6503] SPEAKER_27: But I mean, and I threw out the change structure as just an example. And I know that requires DSA approval. But there are other solutions that are.

[6509] SPEAKER_24: Sure. I just wanted to let you guys know that. And I just wanted you guys, I don't want to drop a bomb on the meeting or anything. I just want you guys to have this in the back of your mind. At some time, we're going to have to address the junior high school pool. And at some time, we got that serious problem with R22 at the HVAC that's going obsolete in 2020. We can't fix that with this bond. you know, but we can put the tools in place to address it, you know, and that's just something, you know, um, a lot of the units are, you know, um, reaching their life's end. It's just something to consider. Am I pro doing the, um, uh, structures? Absolutely. You know, that's something to me that, you know, um, we absolutely have to do and we have enough money to get the other things done. But, you know, like the pool, you know, that's, That's gonna be some serious money.

[6563] SPEAKER_27: That's another time and, and year. Yeah. So let's, let's get through the presentation. Member Preciado.

[6568] SPEAKER_19: I, I have a, a statement before you do this. Oh. At 830 we were supposed to have.

[6572] SPEAKER_27: There are no comments from. There's no comments.

[6574] SPEAKER_19: No. Does anybody, usually we ask if any, if there's anybody in the audience that wants to do it. No, he did it earlier. Yeah. And then we can do it. Did I miss it? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. That's okay. Okay.

[6584] SPEAKER_27: Okay, Member Preciado.

[6586] SPEAKER_26: Okay, so I want to say, I think, Tom, I think you're reading my notes. In terms of that piece, I, I, I think in terms of having the sites be able to make that determination. So for example, I'm looking like Lincoln says there's six playground sites, right? Maybe they want three larger ones instead of six. But I think it's important for us to be able to lay out like, here's the proposal that we have, here's up to the amount, and then be able to hopefully get it installed by this summer. but as part of that development process, I think Vince or Mr. Richards could explain what the process is that if we are going to do something more creative or something different, then it just would be a longer time frame and it may not be this summer, it may be this, but that's Site-by-site choice right because people can make that determination whether they on their own so the last piece I just want to reiterate for Thinking about for the future is we need to have certified folks for to repair in the future And I think that's important, so I want to reiterate that okay number Crocker I think we had talked before about the fact that This is this is not a list that we can approve Because there's work to be done before and new structuring needs to be done for it

[6670] SPEAKER_19: Because of that, I hesitate to put a number on it. I think after we see how you would approach this, what the process would be, I think we're looking for equity at all sites. But that doesn't mean all sites are coming in the same. And so some sites may need more work than others. And I think that has to be found out. Rather than saying every site will have $30,000 or $100,000, I think we need to get equity for all the sites. So I would rather take it a little slow because this is an investment for 15, 20 years at least. And so if we're looking at different ways of handling the area and giving physical experiences to the kids, then we have to do more than just cookie cutter. This is a good play structure. And that's going to take time. And so rather than herding it up, I think that we are looking for a little bit more research And at that point, when you have together what it is you want to do, then I think it's your decisions, it's the site decisions. And we're just sort of here to help pay the bills.

[6739] Ray Rodriguez: Ms. Rodriguez? I can't believe that we're bringing something up. But I'll be positive. Back in March, staff looking at equity for all the sites after we approved the merger and what we were going to do with those schools. Staff wanted us to spend money on to have equity on all the sites. And one of the things that we discussed was the place structures. The board decided not to approve that at that time. We did approve the curb appeal and some other stuff. But so it's been eight months and I think it's time that we just approve this money and allow staff to work with the principals and come up with a way to, you know, take care of the needs of each site. I think we have to trust staff. So they're asking for $2.2 million. The money's there. The community wants it. They're tired of having equipment that doesn't work. It's not safe. So I implore the board to approve this so we can move forward. Okay. Thank you.

[6817] SPEAKER_27: From what I'm hearing, the consensus of the board is that we're supportive of spending money, you know, 2.2, 2. whatever, to replace, repair, do what's necessary to update our playground structures. I think now it's a matter of timeline, right? Whether we approve an up to amount, you know, 2.2 and then you come back with a plan later or, you know, come back with a plan that details how much each of the sites would cost, and then we can then approve that package. Right. So it's, go ahead.

[6855] SPEAKER_22: If I could clarify, I think that knowing the principles, if I came to them and said, there's a limit to what you can spend, and we have to have some rules and parameters around what can and can't be purchased, I think that's one factor. I think another factor is, If you set an amount that is not to be exceeded, we probably can come in pretty easily under that, because the counterweight to that is going to be, what can we get done by next fall? So I think I'd like to see how we could put together a plan. If you said not to exceed 2.1, and then we go back and do our homework and find out, OK, this is what we can get done based on school input. This is kind of their playgrounds or play spaces that they would like to implement. Then the next question is, how soon can we get that in process? I think that's possible. It's very doable. I think there's also, so I think the factor also is, can we get it done by fall? I think that the issue of, I think two people should be trained on playground inspection, not just one. I think cross-training is important. I think equity for all sides can be another factor that we bring to principals to come back and bring to us and say, OK, here's kind of the parameters of what has to occur. And here's some options for you to consider. I think principals would love to be involved in that kind of conversation. My only concern is time. I mean, I can give you assurances that I'll bring back a more detailed plan, even if you do approve it, to say, this is kind of where we are. Here's our next step. Here's our status report. That way there's not just a planning and an approval and you never hear about it again. I just worry that if it's six months through DSA, I'd like to get through that pain if it's necessary to be able to get stuff in place by fall. So I think there's a way for our staff to come back with a more intentional plan that ensures input, that ensures some of the factors that you laid out for us here. I think that's very possible. OK. Ms. Thomas.

[6987] Nancy Thomas: I feel comfortable with the amount that's being asked for. knowing that there may be additional structures and maybe some are repaired so it would come in less. I'd be okay with that with a 10% buffer if you find out that there's things you need to do and you need to spend 10% more. That's what my thinking is. And I agree with you that these playgrounds have been in very poor shape for many years, three years on one structure alone. So, if we can get it done by the fall, I think that would be fantastic. Okay.

[7022] SPEAKER_27: Member Perciotto.

[7023] SPEAKER_26: So, I wanted to say that I'm ready to make a motion on this if this works.

[7029] SPEAKER_27: Let's go through. Yeah. Okay. Member Rodriguez.

[7032] Ray Rodriguez: I'd like to make a motion that we approve. Wait, he was going to do it. Okay, so I'd like to second the motion.

[7038] SPEAKER_27: No, he hasn't motioned yet.

[7039] Ray Rodriguez: Do you have any comments?

[7040] SPEAKER_27: Do you want to make a motion? Do you have any discussions? I'm ready to make a motion in a second. Okay, so, and then my comment before you start, Mr. Piazzolla, is that I would really, really encourage when we go back to this plan that if we approve a set amount not to exceed, et cetera, that he'll bring up. I would really encourage these site principles to think out of the box, right? This is your opportunity. You're getting a good chunk of money to rethink, revamp, and then really do something exciting and impactful for your students. So please, please think outside the box on this. OK.

[7074] Ray Rodriguez: So I'd like to call for the question, please.

[7077] Nancy Thomas: We haven't had a motion.

[7079] Ray Rodriguez: You call for the question after you get a motion. I'm asking for a motion, so. Member Prosciutto.

[7084] SPEAKER_26: OK. So I wanted to move to approve an amount up to $2,257,216 for playgrounds with direction to staff to use equity as lens for building or bringing in the playgrounds and making decisions locally at the site to consider their local identity.

[7107] Ray Rodriguez: I'd second that. Okay.

[7114] SPEAKER_27: Vote please. Five ayes. Thank you.

[7128] SPEAKER_27: That's. Item G, college readiness block grant.

[7132] Ray Rodriguez: I'd like to make a motion that we approve. I'll second.

[7135] SPEAKER_27: Move and second it. Vote, please. Oh.

[7141] Ray Rodriguez: Okay. Discussion?

[7146] SPEAKER_27: I didn't see any discussion. Uh-huh. I didn't see any. Did you want to?

[7150] Nancy Thomas: Well, I was going to ask a question, but that's all right.

[7153] SPEAKER_26: I want to make sure that it was clear that it was measure G, because that's what we were discussing the whole time.

[7158] SPEAKER_27: It's just that part.

[7160] SPEAKER_26: You have to vote on this one, the current one.

[7183] Bowen Zhang: Five ayes.

[7189] SPEAKER_27: Item H, Masters in Governance Training.

[7198] Nancy Thomas: I'm the one that brought that forward and you've seen that there's on the list that was attached to the agenda that there are some great dates in February, March, April, that are local in Burlingame or, or not so far away up in the North Bay. I think in the past we have recommended that all members of the board receive Masters in Governance training. We have two new members of the board. The other three, three of us have primarily finished or almost finished the series. I think to have the superintendent and the board attend the MIG training together is a wonderful learning experience and bonding experience for us. And so my hope tonight is that we would approve our, because we have to approve any money we spend on conferences, that we would approve our attendance at the MEG. We'd encourage our new board members to attend and that those of us that can attend, along with the superintendent and the new board members, should try to attend. It's a lot less money per person if we've already been through the MIG training. So at the very least, we can discuss the dates later. But I think it's important, since they're filling up, that we try to converge on dates that we can all agree to. And maybe, Patty, you can help us by polling the board, come up with some dates after we approve that we want to attend it.

[7294] SPEAKER_27: Do I have a motion to approve? I so move. Okay, by Ms. Crocker. Oh, let's give a second and we'll do the comment. Is there a second? Or. I'll second. Mr. Priasal.

[7306] SPEAKER_26: Yeah, so the only thing that I wanted to add to that would be if we could limit it to just Northern California in terms of, because it's a, as a cost issue, so if we can put that as part of the motion, that it would be limited to Northern California, and then only up to that we have in the board budget so that we wouldn't go over.

[7327] Nancy Thomas: How much more do we have in the board and if we, if we don't have enough, maybe we can decide this is important enough.

[7343] SPEAKER_19: There are five courses, right? Five different courses. Yes. And part of the, part of the strength is.

[7355] Nancy Thomas: With other board members and the superintendent. I think the Burlingame dates are, are good ones for us to, to push for. But there also is San Rafael, which is a short drive.

[7372] SPEAKER_25: Currently, the board's conference budget is down to $353 left because so many people went to CSBA. But there are other line items in the budget. So if the motion goes forward, I would propose that the superintendent and I bring back any needed budget adjustments to the board president, to the board's budget, to take care of between now and the next board meeting.

[7397] Nancy Thomas: OK.

[7400] SPEAKER_26: we do have a. So there's a conflict. I, I'm just going to think, I, no, I'm just, I just, I wouldn't, I don't know how much these things cost. I wouldn't want it to be $10,000 for us to go to a conference. I, I, I just don't know how much it costs, but.

[7412] Nancy Thomas: I think it's about $250 per module.

[7417] SPEAKER_28: It's fairly inexpensive. I think most of them run anywhere from 150 to about 250.

[7423] SPEAKER_26: And the reason that's my concern, we just had the qualified budget and we want to make sure that we're setting the example in terms of cutting costs if it's not right.

[7432] SPEAKER_25: Just to let you know where we'd be coming from. We did not have an election and we had $20,000 still left in the election budget. So there are funds available since there was no election. We do have the scholarship.

[7449] SPEAKER_26: And I will sign up for them too.

[7452] Nancy Thomas: Okay, then I think another point is that in the past we have not charged for our own local travel or food or anything when we've gone to these things. So the public can see that we are trying to be frugal in light of our budget.

[7469] SPEAKER_27: Okay. Okay. So we have a sitting motion and a second. No adjustments, correct? Or do you want to add the adjustment? I just was in Northern California.

[7476] SPEAKER_19: Northern California. I will accept that.

[7477] SPEAKER_27: Yeah. Okay. We'll accept that change. Ms. Crocker, you, you have to speak.

[7483] SPEAKER_19: I'm sorry, no. I, I was looking to vote. Sorry. Okay. Saw that green.

[7486] SPEAKER_27: Let's vote, please. Five ayes. Okay, so we have a string and these are procedural for typically every year and we have a string of them. And if you look in the, the packet that has the, the various committees that we've, we've committed to and it shows what we were last year and then our alternate. Would we like any changes? I'm happy with the current, the group as is, and I'd be willing to, you know, accept them all. We can go one by one without having to discuss each one and maneuvering the matrix. But if there are any changes, board members?

[7532] Ray Rodriguez: I'm fine with the way it is, right?

[7534] SPEAKER_27: I'm fine. Okay. So we're fine with the way that it was composed in 2015, then we're just going to go down the line. I'll entertain a motion to approve H. Oh, could I?

[7542] SPEAKER_19: Sorry. Where's the file?

[7546] SPEAKER_27: It's on page 215.

[7550] SPEAKER_21: 216.

[7550] SPEAKER_27: Oh, 216, yeah, sorry. 216.

[7552] SPEAKER_28: President Nguyen, you have Dave Markin in one of the committees, redevelopment committee.

[7557] SPEAKER_27: Ah, so can we reassign that to superintendent?

[7564] SPEAKER_19: Yes. I'm sorry, what you, you said, what did you say about the redevelopment?

[7568] Bowen Zhang: Mr. Markin last year. Dave Markin is the.

[7569] SPEAKER_19: Yeah. Yeah. So we're gonna. Could I. That, that happens to be a legal requirement because it's with the city. And it's the end of the redevelopment monies. And so I'm approved to do it. And so I'm really happy to do it because it's once a year, once a quarter. OK. And I don't know that actually the superintendent has been a second. So it's just a matter of getting the information.

[7590] Ray Rodriguez: All right. Ms. Rodriguez? No, just keep that as is. It's a change. Dave Markin to superintendent.

[7597] Nancy Thomas: Member Thomas. Actually, I believe Member Crocker is the alternate at ROP. And it says this is Mr. Rodriguez, so that correction needs to be made.

[7610] SPEAKER_27: Right. OK. Can we note that, Ms. Sandoval?

[7614] SPEAKER_19: The other thing is that we have always made it light for the president, because the president has a lot of responsibilities. So if there's something that, Tom, if you would like to.

[7626] Ray Rodriguez: He said he was cool with it. Like on BITSA, if you want to switch, where I'll be first and you'll be second. Let's do that. Sure.

[7631] Nicole Pierce-Davis: Can we do that, please? Yeah.

[7632] SPEAKER_27: Okay. Can we note that also, Ms. Sandoval? Yeah. So for BITSA, Mr. Rodriguez and I are just flipping spaces. Yeah. So I'm the alternate. And then you have the correction for ROP and then the correction for the redevelopment committee. Okay. Got it. So, we'll go down to H. Do you have a motion? I'd like to make the motion. Aye. Okay. Motion seconded. With the adjustments. With all the adjustments. Right. Vote please.

[7667] SPEAKER_19: Are we voting on one or the whole package?

[7669] SPEAKER_27: The whole thing. I think we have to vote on each item, because they're just. Oh, we do.

[7672] SPEAKER_25: Mr. Witten, a point of order. You mentioned item H, which the board has already put it on. I believe you're on item I. Oh, I'm sorry.

[7677] SPEAKER_27: Thank you very much. Thank you. That's why I did a cross out.

[7680] SPEAKER_19: Mission Valley ROP would be Nancy Thomas.

[7682] SPEAKER_27: Item I. Item I. Thank you. And if you want to say who it is.

[7686] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah. Yeah. Mission Valley ROP.

[7689] SPEAKER_19: So who moved that?

[7691] Nancy Thomas: I move that we provide with Nancy Thomas as the appointee and Jan Crocker as the alternate.

[7700] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. I second. Item J. Oh, we got a vote on it.

[7709] SPEAKER_27: Yeah. Is there a motion to approve J?

[7712] SPEAKER_19: No, we haven't done I. We haven't voted on I. We just did I. I just.

[7716] SPEAKER_27: Vote. Yeah, we did. I just displayed it.

[7719] SPEAKER_26: No, it didn't. No?

[7720] SPEAKER_27: It didn't come up. Okay, let's vote again.

[7723] SPEAKER_19: I. There we go.

[7729] Bowen Zhang: Oh, yes. There you go.

[7730] SPEAKER_27: Okay. Item J. This is for. SELPA. SELPA.

[7740] Nancy Thomas: I move that Mr. Rodriguez be appointed to SELPA with Tom Lynn being the alternate. Okay.

[7746] SPEAKER_27: I second. Seconded. Vote, please. Oh, yes.

[7761] SPEAKER_19: Item K. I move that Ray Rodriguez be the representative for the East Bay Bitsa Induction Consortium and Tom Nguyen be alternate.

[7774] SPEAKER_27: I'll second. Move and second. Vote, please. Oh, yes. Item L.

[7792] SPEAKER_19: I move that Janet Crocker be the representative and the alternative be Pat Sanchez.

[7801] SPEAKER_26: I'll second.

[7802] SPEAKER_27: Mr. and Ms. Crocker. Oh, yes. Item M. Audit, Audit Committee.

[7827] Nancy Thomas: I move that Nancy Thomas be and.

[7832] SPEAKER_19: Well, wait a minute. It's two members, yeah. So it's that. We had two members that. And then. Frankie, did you want to be?

[7836] SPEAKER_26: And I'm the, I'm the alternate. So it's member, it would be member Thomas and member Crocker as the committee members, and then I would be the alternate. Okay. That's why there's two.

[7846] SPEAKER_19: If someone would like to take that position, it's up to you. Or if you want to do it just as Nancy.

[7852] SPEAKER_25: I believe it currently is Mr. Wynn. Yes, it is, it's Mr. Wynn now.

[7855] SPEAKER_27: I'm not sure I have, I've done it.

[7859] SPEAKER_19: Anyone that has not done it?

[7862] Nancy Thomas: I think that we could benefit from Mr. So Frankie, you want to jump into that role with Ms.

[7866] SPEAKER_26: Thomas? Sure. I'd say in terms of scheduling, that's the hardest part, because it has to be.

[7872] SPEAKER_27: Three times a year.

[7874] Nancy Thomas: It's, yeah, it's only three times a year, and, and we can schedule those meetings at five or 530.

[7879] SPEAKER_26: They've, they've been very flexible.

[7884] SPEAKER_27: And then I can be the alternate. So if you can't make it, then I can, I can jump in. How's that? So can we redo the, the motion please, Ms. Thomas?

[7893] Nancy Thomas: I move that Nancy Thomas and member Preciado be the members of the audit committee with member Nguyen as the alternate.

[7907] SPEAKER_25: But there's a meeting on January the 9th, which is the first day back from break.

[7912] SPEAKER_27: And if you can't make it, that's fine, because I've committed, I've committed to that meeting already.

[7916] SPEAKER_26: So if you can't, then I can jump in for you. Yeah, that's not a problem. Yeah, I'm in negotiations. Yeah.

[7920] SPEAKER_27: Sorry, he'll move. Member Rodriguez moved. Vote please. All ayes. Next item, N, city liaison.

[7945] Ray Rodriguez: I move that we appoint member Porciano and member Crocker, and then the alternate would be all of us, whoever's remaining.

[7955] SPEAKER_27: Whoever's remaining, okay.

[7957] SPEAKER_19: Available. I'll second that.

[7958] SPEAKER_27: Second by member Crocker. Vote, please.

[7968] SPEAKER_19: I'm sorry, I thought I voted. There's a little thing that pops up.

[7974] SPEAKER_27: All ayes. Consent item. So let's get to consent item A first, and then before we get to the B. Do we have a motion to approve A1, personnel report? So moved. Moved by Member Rodriguez. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Preciado.

[7996] Cary Knoop: Vote please.

[8003] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Consent item B any polls? Hopefully not. We can just approve a consent as is. Any, any move? Any motion?

[8018] SPEAKER_19: Move acceptance of the personnel, personnel consent item B1 through B7.

[8026] Nancy Thomas: B1. I'll second that. B1 through B7.

[8029] SPEAKER_27: What about, what about B10? 8, 9, 10 as well. 8, 9, 10.

[8032] SPEAKER_19: Oh, I'm sorry, 8-9-10. I'm sorry. 8-9-10.

[8034] SPEAKER_27: So, move to approve the entire consent agenda. Thank you. And seconded by Ms. Thomas. Vote, please.

[8046] SPEAKER_19: That is assuming that, I did find one typo in one of the minutes, but it's an obvious, I've already done that. Thank you.

[8052] SPEAKER_27: Okay, all ayes. Board comments on consent item agenda items. Let's start with Mr. Presado. None? Okay. Anyone? No? No. Thank you. Next item. Oh.

[8071] SPEAKER_19: We had a request to go to Disneyland. Is that, is that something that we wanted to? Yeah, that wouldn't be here.

[8078] SPEAKER_27: That is, it's B7.

[8079] SPEAKER_19: Yeah. Okay.

[8083] SPEAKER_21: Gotcha.

[8083] SPEAKER_27: Okay. Future agenda items. So this is, this is one that I put up on, that I brought to the attention of the superintendent. What I wanted to do is when we go to board docs, one of the things that I found really One of the things I found really neat about the ability of board docs is that at the end of every meeting the future agenda items is actually agendized and it has a chart of requested agenda items by various board members so that we're sure that we're tracking what we've requested because oftentimes we've made these requests several months ago and then you know, everyone gets busy and it falls off the radar. And so it's a running total. I sent out to the board a Google Docs to fill in into your cells what items that you would like to be listed and posted. So when we do move to Board Docs, it will be posted as far as our request and the approximate timeline of when they will be discussed. And so that enables the public to see and plan far ahead when we would be discussing those various items. So please, at your leisure, go ahead and fill in that Google Docs form so that we can display it when we get to Google Docs. I also want the future agenda items to be a standing item that we address every time. And if there are things that need to be added, that the agenda items are reflective of what you want to be addressed, then at least we've gone through that. Okay? Next, employee organizations. Do we have anyone from NTA, CSA, or NEWMA? Once, twice, thrice, no? Thank you. Committee reports. Anyone?

[8201] SPEAKER_26: For the city liaison committee, we will be meeting soon. OK. January 11th. Yes.

[8211] SPEAKER_27: OK. No one else?

[8213] SPEAKER_24: President Nguyen. I'm sorry.

[8216] SPEAKER_22: I have a request here for a committee I'd like to pilot this year called Community Advisory Council. And I'd like to request at least two board members work with me to compile that, and it would be Probably not more than four meetings for the rest of this year to begin engaging other community stakeholders to give me advice and counsel on larger picture items. So if there's any you guys are willing to one or two of you willing to help me with that, I'd appreciate it.

[8251] SPEAKER_27: I'd be willing to do it. I'd love to. Okay. You got your two volunteers? Beautiful. Awesome. Thank you. And Ms. Thomas, do you want to say something? No.

[8258] SPEAKER_26: I was about to say, I'm not interested to do that.

[8260] SPEAKER_19: Well, I think, I think that, that we will be with Pat. Okay. At the liaison meeting. Okay. So I think that, that he can get the input from us at that point, the connection. So, essentially, it looks like the whole board is.

[8272] SPEAKER_27: Right. Okay. Item on to 18. So, let's start with Member Thomas.

[8278] Ray Rodriguez: Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry. Did we do announcements? We just did committee reports.

[8282] SPEAKER_27: We're there right now as far as announcements and requests and whatnot. Okay. So I have one. Yeah. I'm gonna start with Ms. Thomas and we'll go around. Okay. Okay.

[8290] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. Okay. I attended the ROP meeting and I was absolutely delighted that Chef Schrock, I believe that's his name from the high school, gave a report and showed us pictures of the work that was done for the culinary program at the high school. And he was thanking staff profusely, primarily the superintendent and our director of MOT for all of their help in making sure that they, that The work got completed and by the start of school, we had a culinary program room that was just amazing and, and he's very thankful for that. So I'd like to tell you that. Also, we had a turnover in membership in the ROP board. So we have a new member from, and I forget her name, from New Haven. So I'm looking forward to continuing to work. We've got a really big grant coming from the state for career technical education. And so I think there's going to be more resources. And I'm delighted to hear that the superintendent is inviting the superintendent of ROP to come and address the board. Other than that, the audit committee is meeting when we come back from break. And I'm wishing everyone a very happy holiday.

[8381] SPEAKER_27: Thank you.

[8382] Ray Rodriguez: Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you. We had a visit, the superintendent and I decided to visit the high school, the MCA Academy, and Mr. Gordon and Principal Werther were very cordial and I would encourage all the board members to do the same. It's just wonderful things going on at the high school and the superintendent has something in in place or thinking about a way to promote it. So hopefully we can bring kids, high school kids to our high school from other schools that really want to get involved in the MCA Academy. Member Crocker and I had a chance to do Mr. and Mrs. Claus at Kidango today, which was fun. And we'll be doing it Thursday at 10 a.m. at Whiteford Preschool. This is a time of year, I guess, where I personally and I'm sure every board member would like to wish our whole community a Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, and Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Holidays to everybody. And this is a time of year when we ask staff, when they have their time off, to kind of relax and do something fun. And so you can come back ready to take on the new year, so it's a happy new year.

[8471] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Member Crocker.

[8473] SPEAKER_19: I think you pretty well covered the activities that I had. I just want to make one point. It's very nice to see the little girls look and saying, there's a female. That's not what they're saying, but that's what they're thinking, I'm sure. So I think that we're looking at equity in all areas in Newark Unified School District.

[8490] SPEAKER_27: It's been fun. Thank you. Member Preciado.

[8493] SPEAKER_26: I just wanted to wish everyone a happy holidays. OK.

[8497] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. I do have one, one item that I, I do want to bring up to the group to, for discussion. I don't know whether, I don't think it warrants an agenda item. Nor does it fit under closed session. And so, correct me if, if I'm out of order on this. I wanted to and bring to the board a discussion about seating arrangement on the dais. And the In my experience with other boards, school boards, I've always experienced the superintendent seated next to the president with the board members around, around those two. One that builds a, a, a message and a culture of, of a governance team. Typically when, when members of the public or staff addresses the board, they're also addressing the superintendent. We have a unique format for the superintendents on the side, although that's not entirely unique to us. We understand that some districts do it in a multitude of different ways. But it just in my experiences, the superintendent is generally next to the board president. And so, I wanted to see how the board felt about that before we made that change. I don't think it needs, it wants discussion but I don't think it needs to be an official agenda item because it's just a matter of a seating. And so, folks?

[8584] SPEAKER_19: In the past, we had a rotation system so that people would be in different locations.

[8588] Bowen Zhang: Right.

[8589] SPEAKER_19: Just because different locations have different perspectives. From my perspective, I think that that's something that, as a president, you have the right, it's sort of a structural thing like the agenda. Whatever you think works. I would like to see you next to the superintendent. I don't know that being in the middle of the board is the answer or not. I don't know. I think some of them, some of them have, I, was it Ohlone? Do they have staff on one side and. Right. And the two people in the center.

[8623] SPEAKER_27: Yeah, based, depending on the configuration of the room. But I think generally, it's, they're next to each other. Mr. Rodriguez.

[8630] Ray Rodriguez: Yeah, I think we need to ask the superintendent if he wants to sit next to President Ohlone.

[8636] SPEAKER_22: serve at the pleasure of the board.

[8638] SPEAKER_19: Well, Mr. Rodriguez did separate two people that he didn't want together.

[8643] Ray Rodriguez: Right. But I, I like the rotation system, but I also am in approval of having the superintendent sit next. So I think we can do both. Mr., Ms. Thomas.

[8653] Nancy Thomas: Okay, I, I think we, we need to codify this because, and I think it, if we're gonna do it, we ought to do it and say that we're gonna do it every year. Because if it's at the prerogative of the board president. Let's talk about what could happen when I'm board president next year. And I'm fine with having the superintendent on the dais. And with the people I've talked to, the other board members at CSBA, it's kind of a mix. Some are next to the president, but oftentimes Like in Fremont, they're, they're at the end of the dais, so they're on one end or the other. And sometimes the assistant is right next to the superintendent. So there's a lot of things that are, a lot of ways of doing it. And if, if I next year as president, and it's my prerogative, I want to move the superintendent to the end, the perception could be that He's getting demoted away from me or something. You know what I'm saying? So I don't think that this should be something that the board president decides. I think this is something that the board as a team decides. And.

[8731] SPEAKER_27: So can I, can I, thank you. So can I come back at the next board meeting. Yeah. And with the board policy add that, the, as far as the seating arrangement to the protocols, as far as the. I think it should be. Or do you want a separate item? Or separate document?

[8747] Nancy Thomas: I think it should be part of our, we, we talk about the rotation in our board handbook. I think that's the kind of thing that could be part of the protocols in our board handbook. And, and if we all agree that superintendent sits next to the president, I would hope, I would hope you would recommend when you bring it back that, that we, we rotate so that the vice president is next to you. Yes. On one side. Yeah. And so then I would move over.

[8777] SPEAKER_27: So what, what, what, what I had originally, thank you, what I originally had in mind was to actually move Sierra over to where Mr. Sanchez is currently. And so, Mr. Sanchez would sit in this position, Mr. Rodriguez would sit. So, there is a rotation, there is a shift. Yeah, there is a rotation. There is a, I mean, there isn't a shift from my seat just because we're in the first year of the starting point. But there is that, that's still the natural shift and you're still next to me as the vice president.

[8808] Nancy Thomas: But then the next year I would be where, on the other side. You would be here. No, you would be here. I'll be there and then the next year I'll be where, where Member Crocker sat. Correct. So, I mean, I think if we, it, it, It's kind of like it's a practice, and I think if we don't have an actual policy or something, we should really be able to discuss our practice and discuss, you know, and for example, there's so many ways that other districts do it, so it's, if that's the preferred way, then let's have the board discuss it and go ahead with it.

[8846] SPEAKER_27: Mr. Priasato.

[8846] SPEAKER_26: Yeah, I'm kind of, either way, I think about it from a functional perspective. One, I like being next to the superintendent, but from a functional perspective in terms of team, so I get the, the thing that we are a team, but then if the superintendent moves, does that mean that he's not with his team? Like, so, like, and then, and then if he needs to ask a question for staff, it's kind of, it might be functionally awkward to

[8869] SPEAKER_27: Well, no, because the team that superintendent truly belongs on is the team of the board as a governance team, right? The other staff members are, yeah, they're part of his team but that the real team is a governance team of six.

[8882] SPEAKER_26: I guess I see it as we're all in teams. Well, yeah.

[8885] Ray Rodriguez: It could be looked at both ways.

[8885] SPEAKER_26: But I just want to make sure, like for me, it's more of a functionality of it. Like what purpose does it serve? Is it more of a you're trying to like send a message or like functionally is like superintendent going to have to be like asking It seemed like, hey, like passing notes to us to pass notes, like to answer questions, right? I think of it like that.

[8905] SPEAKER_22: Mr. Sanchez. I would share my perspective. I do a lot of directing staff through text during meetings the whole time. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I do do that to try to keep things going forward. I think that I'm used to sitting next to the board of president. I think there's ways to do both. I think we can put together a couple of scenarios that you could look at next time. I think it'll meet all of those things.

[8932] SPEAKER_26: I don't mind either way. It would be awkward if you're over there and then you have to get up and ask questions.

[8938] SPEAKER_22: Right. No, I know. It's going to mess up the flow. I know. But I think there's other ways of looking at that where I know that in one scenario, president would be here, the board would be there, we're still next to each other, I still have access to staff. There's a way to do it that way too. So there's some scenarios we can address that.

[8956] Nancy Thomas: That sounds interesting. That's what I thought you were doing.

[8959] SPEAKER_27: Yeah. And so as far as seating arrangement, and the reason why I brought this up is that I've just known that the superintendent is always next to the board president, whichever the configuration. It doesn't have to be necessarily in the middle. It could be up to the side, but we're together.

[8973] SPEAKER_22: But one more thing. I'm not used to having assistant superintendents at the dais either. So in my former district, all staff sat down there. Only the president, legal, and the board were able to do this. So it's a shift for me, too.

[8988] SPEAKER_19: Legal. Interesting.

[8989] Nancy Thomas: I did a quick survey of a group of CSBA members, and they are all over the map. But I would say that at least half of them have the superintendent next to them, and the other half have them at the end. And so if you were to be next to the superintendent on that side, you would have access, I think, that feels like a good arrangement.

[9012] Ray Rodriguez: So I'd like to make a request that at the next board meeting that you bring it back as an agenda item and we discuss it. Sure. And at the same time we could talk about the agenda as a whole as far as whether we want to have new business at the front and et cetera, et cetera. Okay.

[9032] SPEAKER_27: So we brought two documents, one to change the board policy, I think 9300, to set where consent items are located and then we'll bring back a second document that will give the board several options as far as seating arrangement is concerned.

[9051] Ray Rodriguez: Fair? And then, right, and I have a request. I love this right here. What? Community doesn't seem to be able to see it. No, there's another one. No, no, even that. So I think you were talking about maybe putting it up high. Yeah. And I like that idea.

[9067] SPEAKER_27: So we... Thank you. So this is a pilot run. We wanted to see how it tested, right? So audience member...

[9078] SPEAKER_25: Can you see it?

[9078] Ray Rodriguez: No. They can't see it. That's why. Oh, wow. They can't see it? Too small? Too small.

[9083] SPEAKER_27: OK, too small. All right. So we'll make some tweaks. But the primary objective was so that we're looking at the presenter and not down, because in my opinion, that's disrespectful.

[9095] SPEAKER_19: Well, for them, it could be projected here.

[9097] SPEAKER_27: Yeah, we could do both. We can still have that option of projection, and then we'll have the screen here as well. That's a good way to do it. That could be done as well.

[9107] SPEAKER_22: Good.

[9108] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. And Mr. Simon is here, so he'll take note of that. And if we do mount the television, it'll be higher so that we can see the staff members on the side there if need be. So we'll bring that back. Superintendent, concluding comments.

[9125] SPEAKER_22: A couple of business items. I do have a request sheet, sign up sheet for the LCAP stakeholders meetings series. If I'm going to pass that around, if you can pick one or two if you're able. I would appreciate that. While you're looking at that, we are still on track to do board docs training for Tuesday, January 10th. It's approximately for an hour. Patty, is there anything you want to add to the board docs training?

[9160] SPEAKER_28: I just I wanted to reconfirm that that Tuesday will work for all, because after reviewing the minutes when I was doing the minutes, there were several conversations happening, and I wasn't sure which we ended up with. So I'm hoping that everybody is available on the 10th, because that's when we have the trainer come in. And it's only for an hour. So you're going to be here at home. We're going to be here. It has to be here in the boardroom because we're going to be doing the whole reenactment of of a port agenda item.

[9190] SPEAKER_26: This is the 10th? The 10th. January 10th. What time was that again? I'm sorry. I've made it clear that I can't make second and fourth Tuesdays. So I can't make it.

[9198] Nancy Thomas: And, and I had my, my brother's flying in and I think I'd pick him up around five. So the Monday works but not the Tuesday for me.

[9208] SPEAKER_28: It may be, I'm present as well, so it may be that I may have to train you on my own.

[9213] Aiden Hill: I don't. I'm okay with that. Yeah, I'm okay.

[9215] SPEAKER_28: I don't think there's a whole lot on the governance side that requires a whole lot. I mean, like I said, as she said, it would take less than an hour. But I did want the majority here.

[9224] SPEAKER_26: Yeah. Okay. I'm okay. I'm okay with your training. That's it. I can do it. I'm still. I'm here.

[9230] Nancy Thomas: So, so are we going to do it on the 10th or the 11th?

[9233] SPEAKER_28: It has to be the 10th. because that's when she's flying in, and it has to be coordinated between the administrative, executive cabinet, and board training, which happens Monday, Tuesday. And so it has to be on those dates. Okay, well.

[9249] Ray Rodriguez: So, can three board members, is that good enough, so we can have training?

[9251] SPEAKER_28: No, that's, that's fine. I could train you directly, Nancy. Yeah.

[9254] Nancy Thomas: No problem. Or if my brother, you know, depending on when my brother comes in, I might be able to make it. You're being trained on Monday.

[9261] SPEAKER_27: Okay. I know. Okay. Anything else?

[9263] SPEAKER_22: I also would like to make sure we get a fresh board member headshot picture. We're working on updating the website. If you could coordinate that with Patty, we'd appreciate that. I'm just double checking all my notes.

[9279] Ray Rodriguez: The schedule, the winter schedule when you're gone,

[9290] SPEAKER_22: Yes, I'll be sending that out. I'll be sending that out in your Friday folder. I will be traveling to Colorado, but I will be designating who's on call while I'm out of the state, and I'll be sending that to you in the Friday folder. Other than that, I would like to also encourage our staff and community to please enjoy their winter break, enjoy their holiday. I know that our staff works very hard, diligently every day, and just servicing our community serving our kids, it's just so important. And I really appreciate Shira coming in with her second injury and still toughing out our meetings. It's just a great example of how great our kids are. So I wish you all happy holidays. Thank you.

[9337] SPEAKER_27: Thank you. Merry Christmas to all. Meeting adjourned, 9.38.

No minutes available.