Study Session Meeting

No content available.

[7] SPEAKER_19: So he'll, we'll catch him when he calls in. Thank you. Onto 2.1, which is the approval of the board agenda as presented. Do I have a motion to approve?

[21] Nancy Thomas: I move approval.

[22] SPEAKER_19: By Member Thomas. Is there a second? Second by Member Crocker. Please vote. Thank you. There's Ms. Rodriguez. Can we turn that up or maybe put a microphone next to it or something? That's okay. So on to 3.1, public comment on study session items before we get to 3.2. We have two speakers. Kerry New, three, thank you. Mr. New, thank you.

[89] Cary Knoop: Good evening. Is the mic working? So I looked at the proposal or scenario And one of the things that I noticed is there are no alternatives present. I mean, there's a scenario A and B, but it's basically a package, and then you can choose between two things. So that really worries me, that there's no spectrum of alternatives available for the board. The public, when they were asked what was important for them, it was stay away from the classroom, the teachers, take a look at maintenance and operations, and take a look at the district office. If I look at the scenarios, maintenance and operation, I couldn't find any cut. And for the district office, there is a secretary position, which I don't know if that's a district office secretary position. But apart from that, I don't see any either. I didn't see any program cuts. There's a lot of programs this board has not monitored in years. They have not asked questions whether it's actually effective or it works. There's no cuts. Program cuts are not included. Contracts, what kind of contracts could be cut? There's nothing there on the list either. And then general cuts, you know, printing costs and even little things like no color printing. We do black and white if possible. Food, travel, travel. is a good one. I've been having some conversations with various people, and they say, no, no, travel is cut. And we actually do cut some more. But if I look at the budget versus the unaudited actuals, travel was up 17%. So travel is budgeted 17% up. So lo and behold, if we can cut another $2,000, who are we kidding? So again, I think it's too late and too little. In my opinion, the board has not governed in this matter. They have not monitored. They have not asked questions. They have just waited. And a good example is Oakland. Oakland is going through the same situation. And what does the public say? The board is not governing. They don't ask questions. They just sheepishly sign whatever is presented. You need to ask questions. You need to understand what's going on. That's not managing. Governing is not managing. You need to set direction. You need to show vision. As individual board members, you need to show your vision and say, I am for education, or I am for more sports, or I am for more district office. It doesn't matter what you choose, but you have to vote for that. You have to have debates. The other thing I'm missing is no debates here. Everything is, I don't know, maybe the debates go somewhere else and I'm not implying any Brown Act violations or so, but I don't see debates. And debates can be held. With proper decorum, with proper respect, you can have debates, and you should have debates. So again, it's rather appalling to see that we're potentially cutting 17 teachers, if I calculate correctly, and seven other people. So it's appalling.

[285] SPEAKER_19: Thank you. Cindy Parks.

[295] Cindy Parks: I'd like to echo many of Mr. Newp's comments. especially the one about the fact that the community was very clear in the fact that they wanted you to stay away from the kids, as close to the kids, or they wanted you to be as far away from the kids as possible. I do have a couple of questions. The furlough days, does that include all NUSD employees? The counselors, you list four, and yet, if I count correctly, you have five. So one would wonder why, if you're going to cut counselors, You're not cutting all five. Perhaps there's something going on behind there that could be explained. Why is the AD listed? You never had a discuss about the athletic director. This is something new in all of your discussions. You had five budget sessions last year. You had five budget sessions this year. The athletic director was never an item of discussion. Yet, one item that was discussed was EBIC numerous times. The only time that EBIC is on here, and I guess you consider that a program if you want to, contrary to what Mr. Newp said, then I guess you could consider perhaps EBIC. You have one stipend that is removed, and yet you have two employees that are overseeing that program, yet neither one of them are shown on the list. And yet you were very clear in your direction that you did not want any outside programs funded by NUSD and you have a program there that you are tutoring, you are overseeing the EBIC program for teachers in other districts and that is costing this district money. You came to that realization when you looked at the numbers and yet that program isn't on here other than one stipend for one individual. The election expenses listed on here. If I understand this document, the A and B, that's your multi-year. That's not this year. This year is when you do not have an election. Mr. Richards brought that to your attention that you would not be having an election prior to June. So that is the current 17, 18 year. That A and B option are your multi-year forecasts. So I don't understand why the $33,000 is on there. So I'd like to know. Again, the furlough days, if it's all, why only four counselors? I'd like to really know about EBIC and about the multi-year, why the expense is on there. And this is an item on the agenda, so I can receive answers to the questions.

[461] SPEAKER_19: Thank you. So perhaps the questions will be answered during the process of the study session. If not, we'll be sure to address it.

[469] Cindy Parks: OK, thank you. I'll wait then.

[473] SPEAKER_19: Tommy Edwards.

[485] SPEAKER_01: Sorry, I had to bring my list. The cuts were a little bit daunting. I don't know if I can remember all of them. So I'm coming to you today to speak as a high school teacher. I'm looking at these cuts and I'm seeing them focused very heavily on secondary. I'm not saying that we should be cutting anywhere in the primary, but a lot of these cuts are happening at the secondary level, where we're hoping to get more students that are college and career ready, that want to move forward, that want to go to post-secondary. And I just don't see how you're going to do that with this. If you're cutting four of our five counselors, that's five counselors throughout the district. That means that one counselor will be the counselor for Bridgepoint, for McGregor, for the junior high, and for the high school. That's thousands of students under one person. Just the number of seniors alone, often they can't handle all of that. How are we going to get our students going to college? How are we going to increase the college going rate? How are we going to make it so that people want to come here? When I look at the deans and the assistant principals that we're cutting, I mean, at this point, I guess our new in-house suspension room is going to be at 7-Eleven across the street from the high school, because we don't really have anyone else to actually watch the kids. You'll be having a principal and one AP to run almost 1,800 students. That's madness. I don't even know the word for that. Cutting office clerks. I mean, the list here is almost entirely the people facing the students every single day. When the large white sheet came out that Superintendent Sanchez brought us, it showed a pretty sizable cut happening at the district office. And yes, there were cuts happening at the school site. But it seems like so much of this is focused just on school site instructional people and leadership. And I don't see where the fairness in this. The community wants us to make these cuts as far away from the students as possible. And it looks like you're hitting every single point where the students see the school. I don't see much of anything happening at district office. It's honestly kind of depressing. And for lack of a better word, it's Trumpian. I feel like we were sold a bill of goods. So thanks.

[622] SPEAKER_19: Thank you. On to 3.2, the budget reduction study session. Mr. Richards or Superintendent?

[634] SPEAKER_15: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We will be able to answer a lot of those questions in today's study session that were brought up in public comment. And I think that's probably the best place to start, and by the time we get to the end of that, if we need to take some additional questions, we can. But I do want to put in front of you and remind everyone at the dais this evening that the recommendations that you see here tonight are a function of us having to move forward with things that are not negotiable. So I'm willing to work with the union to negotiate these items. And I think that we have had a good history in the past of being able to work through these things. But at this point in time, we have to go with what is within our sphere of control. meeting the deadline set by the county is also something that's hanging over our head like the sword of Damocles. So I think that let's go through the presentation and let's put the cards on the table and then we can certainly clarify a lot of the, some of the misconceptions that are out there and we'll go forward. But we do have a new handout for the audience and for the board so let's start by distributing the accurate or updated scenarios for everyone. And I just sent these to Mr. Mr. Rodriguez, you should have those in your email. So if you would describe, let's wait until everybody has a copy, then I'll have Mr. Richards describe what is in front of us with both scenarios. And we'll go from there.

[765] SPEAKER_20: And while Charlene continues passing those out, I'll apologize now for the yellow splotches all over scenario B. Yellow seems to be having an issue with my printer in my office. The others were printed on the main business office printer. We did this just for ease of understanding as we look at how things play out in the multi-year projection, but it also happens to be able to answer some of the questions that were already brought up by the public. In both Scenario A and Scenario B, the versions that are now being handed out and that the board has are color-coded to clear up some of the misconception with regard to what is where. So the upper left-hand quadrant, which is sort of a pale orange color, are all things that go into effect in the current school year. The positions were already vacant. We have not filled them and if they are elected to be taken care of by the board then they will be part of the current school year. It's everything in the first section and the first three items in the second section. The light blue section are things for fiscal year 18-19. Light green are new items that haven't previously been identified that are not subject to negotiations. And items that are in the light pink or red section are the ones that are. That coding is consistent across the two sheets. So in scenario B, you'll see that all of the green is on the left and all of the red is on the right. So in both cases, the left half of each scenario is what gets us to $3.6 million. The right half is additional things that could be done that are over and above the $3.6 million. And in both cases, they tie out to the grand total of $5.37 million. So it's not completely an either or. The board could give us direction on any of these items as it so chooses to do. For the purposes of building the actual budget document that is before you for the first interim, which we will go into much more detail at the actual board meeting, scenario B, the all items that are not subject to negotiations, is run through the multi-year projection. The two numbers, as you can see, are very, very similar. So it's not a significant difference between scenario A and scenario B dollars-wise. But scenario B is what was run through the multi-year projection. The question came up with regard to the number of counselors, and indeed there are five on here. One had previously been identified, so it's in the blue section because it was in last year's study session five. And the other four in the green section, because they are new. So actually all five counseling positions are in here, not just four of them, in various locations.

[943] SPEAKER_19: If I can jump in. So regardless of the scenario, whether it's A or B, what we are potentially approving tonight in conjunction with the first interim is the framework in which we're identifying the cuts, the final decision doesn't come until February before we issue pink slip, is that correct? Or what's the timeline with that?

[965] SPEAKER_20: So for certificated employees, the preliminary notices have to be issued before March 15th. Right. And second round notices before May the 15th. For classified, notices have to be issued before May the 1st. It's 60 days for classified. And it's just a single notice, not two notices. Okay.

[985] SPEAKER_19: between first week of January, after the Governor's budget comes out, up until likely February, right? We're trying to hit the March 9th. Is that the time period where that's the finalization of the cuts and notices, et cetera?

[1003] SPEAKER_20: We will be continuing to look at and beginning to build the budget as soon as the governor's numbers come out. It just so happens the school services update is on the day of our next board meeting. So I'm actually going to Sacramento for the morning session of school services and then turning around driving back and then I'll quickly throw their presentation into a condensed format for us to share at the board meeting on January the 16th. So we will be discussing it further at that time. But this is laying the framework to give the county of what we're doing to get to positive for first interim.

[1032] SPEAKER_19: Correct. So I guess for the folks in the audience, this is not the final, final, hey, we're going to send five notices to this particular position, whichever one we identify. I just want to make sure that everyone understands the timeline that is in play.

[1047] SPEAKER_20: The board would have opportunity to make further adjustments between now and second interim, but we would have to. give human resources notification with enough time to take care of anything certificated before March 15th.

[1058] SPEAKER_19: Got it. Thank you. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

[1065] SPEAKER_20: Okay. So after the last study session, when we really didn't have a consensus either way on which way to go with the path, we decided to to continue working to shore up so that we could have either direction hit the $3.6 million mark. And as you'll see when we get to the multi-year projection, when we get to the actual board meeting, 3.6 is actually now a little bit higher than we actually have to go. We have a little tiny bit of wiggle room, but not much. Just keep in mind that this was so that we fulfill the requirements of what the county has given us in setting a direction going forward. And how we do that going forward is really the board's call and the superintendent's call as far as whatever further direction you wish to give. Scenario B is what the multi-year is built on. If there are questions about specific items that the board has, most of these are items that have at some point been discussed before. that you can ask them or if the superintendent has additional comments he would like to make.

[1132] SPEAKER_15: And we can get into that soon. I want to go through and walk through the letters that we received from the county and restate what was the conversation about the county from the first letter to the last letter we received, if you would do that. And it is in your packet, board members, if you drill down past the spreadsheets.

[1155] SPEAKER_20: So the board will call. At the adoption of our budget, we knew when we signed off on the budget that we were not clearing the three-year requirement and that we were going to get some type of comment from the county. And Mr. Potter came and spoke to the board and brought Ms. Salihah-Doyin with him, who is our fiscal advisor from the county. And they went over some of the requirements of what we would have to do before they would even approve our budget, which were identify that we would have to make a resolution to the board that would include. Cuts of the minimum of 2.8 million dollars adopt a resolution on what those would be and then submit that resolution to the board by October the 8th. And we met that requirement. By the action that the board took. At the time. And at the time we were utilizing the community input in reductions. And the county then took that under advisement, they took what we had sent them, and then sent us an actual approval of our adopted budget because the board had met all of the conditions that the county had set. with regard to passing a resolution that at least identified that $2.8 million that they requested. And they acknowledged that you actually did, with the 3.6, create a plan that would get us towards a balanced budget. The implementation of either Scenario A or Scenario B does, in fact, fulfill that requirement and get us to a balanced budget.

[1263] SPEAKER_15: Say more about the change in the big number that has occurred in the county.

[1268] SPEAKER_20: Okay, so as we, well, we'll get into a little bit more in the bigger discussion about the actual, in the actual presentation of the unaudited, I mean not the unaudited, the first interim report. Our enrollment is actually up a little bit this year. Hooray, hooray, hooray. For the first time ever since I've been in this district, and actually only the second time in my entire career in school business, I can actually tell a board that our enrollment is up. We are up about 48 students from last year. So that's a hopeful sign that things are finally turning around and the development is starting to indeed build us some growth. And so we utilized that information and our most recent projection with regard to the work that's been done by our demographers. They had actually projected we would come in higher than that and I projected we would come in lower. We actually split the difference and we're kind of right at the middle. But we've utilized that baseline and that little bit of growth to roll the projection forward. And it does look like we will actually grow for the next four years and then have a slight decline in year five. So we actually have some good news on the horizon. It's very small increments. We do not get back to the size that we were even two years ago over that horizon because we've dropped. So we had those two huge classes that graduated, remember, it was like 150 student drop two years in a row. So it's going to be a while before we cross back over those numbers. But we do begin to inch back forward and that helps us. So in the end, Right now, we have approximately 200,000 to 220,000 better off per year average to the good. So we're just under 3.4, right at about 3.4 actually even of what we would have to do out of the 3.6 and still be able to break even. 3.6 in the multi-year projection actually nets us a surplus of $102,000 next year and $331,000 in the third year out. So you take those two and combine them at about $434,000 combined is an average of $217,000. So we have about $217,000 of wiggle room as of this time. And again, all those numbers could change when the governor's budget comes out. But as of right now, that's where we are.

[1408] SPEAKER_19: OK. So member Crocker had a question.

[1410] SPEAKER_20: Yeah.

[1411] SPEAKER_14: Do you want to get into the individual lines at this point? I don't want to... Whatever questions you have, I think that's kind of what... Yeah, election expenses.

[1423] SPEAKER_20: Every two years we'll have those. Correct. So in the multi-year projection, they're out this year, in next year, and out the following year is how they're built.

[1431] SPEAKER_14: So that's figured out. Yes. We may not spend it. Correct. Because there may not be a need for election, but people are coming for it.

[1438] SPEAKER_14: That was my question.

[1442] SPEAKER_19: So I guess just in dealing with three, I guess there's three sets of numbers that are floating out there now, right? One is the 2.8 minimum part of the letter that the county sent us, and that's the county's request for us to identify 2.8 million worth of cuts. If I'm mistaken. No, no. Interject.

[1463] SPEAKER_20: Yeah. That is correct, because they were looking at the fact that we, at the budget adoption time, were projecting Fund 17 would have an $817,000 balance. You would only have to cut 2.8, use the other 800,000, that would accomplish the 3.6 to take care of it.

[1478] SPEAKER_19: So we have the 2.8, then we have the 3.6, which brings us to a balanced budget, or essentially cut all deficit spending, is that what? Correct. Okay. And then we have the middle number, which is 3.8. whatever, based upon the actual 3.4 now?

[1495] SPEAKER_20: Well, now we're at about 3.4, and that actually is the break-even.

[1498] SPEAKER_19: So now, so NICS 3.6, we're at 3.4 to cut all deficit spending, essentially, balanced budget.

[1507] SPEAKER_20: Yes. What we would have is a deficit of about $100,000 next year and a surplus of $100,000 the following year. The net over two years would be zero.

[1515] SPEAKER_19: OK. And that 3.4 figure can easily change in January. Yes. And then again in May.

[1523] SPEAKER_20: Yes. And in June when the state adopts the budget.

[1527] SPEAKER_19: So the decision tonight is going to be, do we want to trim the minimum that the county has established, which is 2.8, or do we want to go all the way to 3.4 to essentially balance the budget? Is that what I'm hearing?

[1542] SPEAKER_20: Yes.

[1542] SPEAKER_14: 4 to the 5 if we want to build up 17 again. What is 17 going to be at in the 3.4 scenario?

[1551] SPEAKER_20: Under the current scenario, for the current year, the budget was built on about a $4.3 million transfer from Fund 17 to Fund 1. That number is now down to $3.3 million. We've identified a million that won't need to transfer. Largely, that's because of one-time money and then some other savings that we've had. That number could actually go down even further once the board takes action tonight. But at the moment, it's at $3.3. And that reduction leaves about 1.85 million in Fund 17 at this time. And then, depending on where we are, the end of November, beginning of December is the low point of cash for every school district. Because the first round of property taxes come in December. So we pull money out of Fund 17 into Fund 1 to cover the fact that we don't have property taxes and then we reassess at the end of December, beginning of January, once the property taxes process and we project cash forward through March to determine whether or not we can return money back to Fund 17 because we're not gonna need it to clear cash again and then we let it sit in Fund 17 and then determine if we need to due to accruals in June. That's kind of the time frame that we normally have to look at transfers in and out of Fund 17. So we did transfer money out of Fund 17 that you won't see here in first interim because it didn't happen in October. It happened in November, which is the month we always do the big transfer. But that money has transferred. Altogether, we've transferred $3 million from 17 to 1 so far this year. And right now, it looks like projecting forward, we'll be able to return a big chunk of that come spring. But I won't have the exact amounts until we recast the cash flow projection after property taxes get here.

[1666] SPEAKER_14: So.

[1676] SPEAKER_20: yes so even even with that this is just called this is just clearing cash so it doesn't mean that it's a permanent transfer from the fund we have to transfer to cover cash even even next year with a balanced budget if you go into the depth of the details of the second year of the cash flow projection you'll see that there's a million dollar transfer in November from fund 17 to fund one to clear cash and then it turn around and goes back at the end of December after property taxes come back that's only if we have a positive budget right that's you can't take isn't that oh I think I'm thinking of you're thinking of taking out cops we haven't done a cop in this history or a Tran and we're not looking at taking out a trend if we have money in fund 17 there's no reason to take out a trend right borrow from ourselves and pay ourselves back the interest by the interest transfer any Treasury and not have to pay them yes It's really returning Fund 17 back to its original purpose, which was to be the cash loan to cover the November shortfall so that we don't have to issue a TRAN.

[1742] SPEAKER_14: So it is projected that as of June, how much of the $4 million will be back in Fund 17?

[1750] SPEAKER_20: I don't have an answer to that. As the multi-year is built right now, the 3.3 is in there as a transfer as opposed to a borrowing that returns. But we also end the year with a $2 million undesignated fund balance. So in theory right now it looks like about $2 million will be able to go back to Fund 17 at the end of the year. But again we'll see how that plays out based on what the board's actions are tonight. But based on where we are right this time it looks like we would be able to return just short of two million because an undesignated zero is not probably realistic just because of the way the cash comes and goes because sometimes our June money coming in from the state and federal programs comes late so because of the it comes in July and August and even the beginning of September related to the prior year so we end up having to have some funds just to clear cash for the month of June.

[1810] SPEAKER_15: So a couple of other things I think they're important to point out. And I'm looking at scenario B. That first section that's kind of orange in the left-hand column are largely vacancies and positions that don't have someone in them and other areas that are currently vacant, which is an easier thing to cut instead of having to tell someone they don't have a job. There's a few other things in there that the board took action on, like board health reimbursement. board travel and conference. Then as you move into the next section, you know, election expense, attention to attendance, some of those things that we're cutting that don't impact classrooms. All those things are away from classrooms. They're currently vacant and they're trying to keep that spirit of what we learned in the input sessions. The next section that is in blue, bits of travel and conference, counselors, deans, secondary, clerical, .5 FTE, adult office manager. All of those are also not front line classroom instructional positions that we're looking at. 10% reduction in supply budget and K-3 CSR programming, which is something to talk about, and I'll come back to that, are also, the K-3 does impact classrooms, but that is something that is not in the agreement that we have to negotiate. For some odd reason, that's one part that wasn't subject to negotiation and was within our sphere of influence to look at as far as limiting our decision and recommendations this evening to what is in the contract and what's negotiable. The other items that are new, admin secretary, counselors, reduction of principled AP, and specifically athletic director. Athletic director, if I may remind people, is an administrative position. And I felt that if I didn't put it on the table, and hearing some emails and comments that I had from the community that had confusion around that, they would have felt that I was hiding it and trying to protect it. Which I am, and I'll come back to that in a minute. And class size for adult ed has to change, and I think we, go ahead, alternative ed, I'm sorry, are other things that we can control within our part of the agreement. Now in the other right hand column are all of the things that we do want to and will continue to have conversations, negotiations. The challenge for us is how do we go forward with enough to show the county we're moving in the right direction and still negotiating with our partners in a way that makes sense so we can maybe come to the table and offset some of the things that we take action upon tonight. Um, so I wanted to just be really clear about those items at least and um, But I want to make sure we exhaust questions and I do have some specific recommendations after we get past just understanding what's on the sheet and where the board is.

[1995] SPEAKER_16: So I had a question in terms of maybe just not, I don't completely understand this, is EBIC the same as BITSA? Yes.

[2008] SPEAKER_20: And then and I might add the admin secretary that's on there is actually a position that's in that department as well.

[2015] SPEAKER_16: Okay. So, um, and I know this is, is one specific program, but, um, I know we've mentioned this program that specifically we said that we weren't going to, um, um, or it was going to pay for itself. I want to make sure that this does that, right? That's my understanding.

[2032] SPEAKER_15: Letty, would you mind speaking to that?

[2035] SPEAKER_03: So what we're looking at right now, if you look at that first stipend, that essentially is a stipend for one person that supports the private and the charter schools. So that would go away. And then we're looking at the other administrative support position to support, to be able to do work with outside agencies. So right now, what we are looking at is maintaining the position that's there, that remains. to serve our teachers and our staff because that's something we need to provide and that's the way we retain and attract teachers to provide induction. But what's still kind of on the table is just really working through Ed Services as to would we be able to still offer support to outside agencies or not without that additional support? Because now this would just be one person who would essentially provide the support for only our candidates. I'm still not sure because the person who is in that position does not only support induction BITSA. She also has other responsibilities in ed services. So it's, it's really managing within my division as to what comes off of the plate or do we still continue what is now, but not support outside agencies anymore. But the, I guess you could say the administrative support and the actual extra person to do that work goes away. So then, there's gonna be things that come off of the plate or not, so.

[2124] SPEAKER_19: That's that first admin secretary on the green section?

[2130] SPEAKER_16: Thank you.

[2140] SPEAKER_19: So there's one item down in that green area that I do have a concern about. I mean, I have a concern for all of them. But as far as bang for the buck, the impact may be much more detrimental to the benefit that we may gain from it, which is the reduction of the one principal to the AP. I don't, would that, I'm assuming that's at an elementary school.

[2168] SPEAKER_15: There's a couple of options, yes.

[2169] SPEAKER_19: And to save $9,200, I don't know if it's worth $9,200 to downgrade from a principal at a particular site to a vice principal. I think that's something we need to keep, having principals at each of the sites.

[2195] SPEAKER_16: You were talking about scenario B, right? Just in the green. Yeah, the green area.

[2198] SPEAKER_19: Oh, yeah, but scenario B, not scenario C. Because they exist in both scenarios. It's just on different sides of the page. Got it. Yeah.

[2212] SPEAKER_14: Looking at this, I think the point of all taking this into high school is getting a really big hit. It's a major decision to get rid of counselors. Because basically, you've got one with a junior high and three with high school. Is that correct?

[2229] SPEAKER_20: Yes, and one at McGregor. One at McGregor. Three at the high school, one at the junior high.

[2236] SPEAKER_14: So essentially, we're leaving the secondary level with no support in terms of counseling at all. And I think that's a major, major concern for students in terms of being financially. I worry about that. We've done it in the past because it's not the classroom. But I don't know whether it's structuring things differently, whether it can be done. I know a lot of districts have moved along with a lot of different ways of handling counselors not being there for the students by incorporating procedures that allow teachers to have time. And I think if we were to talk about that major renovation, There's a lot of work that has to be done before the counselors can be included from my perspective. This is the new wrinkle that's come in that I'm seeing right now. The other things in the green I have no problem with, but I do have a problem with, with the counselor section. And especially for seniors, I think that at the very least, there has to be someone there. We've cut away what's happened in the So we do see maybe one might be an incident to take all three. So if we approve the first error with the 2.8 million that the county has requested, does that get us to qualified or positive?

[2346] SPEAKER_20: We would be qualified. Well, I take that back. I would have to take a look and see whether or not there's enough in Fund 17 to bridge the gap for two years. I think there actually might be. But it would wipe out Fund 17 in its entirety.

[2360] SPEAKER_19: OK. Fund 17 is our actual surplus on top of the 3% reserve.

[2365] SPEAKER_15: Correct. I don't know if someone else is waiting.

[2369] SPEAKER_19: Yeah.

[2370] SPEAKER_15: Go ahead. I agree. also remind everyone, what I put together, what we put together here tonight is what we can do doesn't necessarily mean this is what I'm recommending we do do. I am also concerned about counselors at the high school. I think we should at minimum until we finish negotiations, keep one there. That's the highest load. And I think eliminating all is probably not a good idea. I agree on about the principal. I don't know if it's worth bang for the buck, There's two other positions I would like to lobby for. One is athletic director. I think that's something that, quite honestly, is working and we don't need to mess with it. It will cause a lot of brain damage for our kids. And there's one other one that I would advocate to keep, and that's the bus driver. Although I would advocate not only that we keep it, but we upgrade it so we could pay a salary that attracts enough so we have a full-time bus driver so we don't have to tell kids they can't go on field trips. So I would say my personal recommendation at minimum would be to keep the bus driver Keep at least one counselor, maybe two depending on the board's direction Keep the athletic director or remove them from the cut list. I guess is another way to say it and You're right nine thousand dollars may not be worth reducing to an AP Considering you know what what that implies? And wherever those numbers total after pulling those out, that might be a good safe bet with the understanding that we go forward, continue negotiating with the union, and maybe figure out how to bring those positions or keep those positions in play through negotiations. So there's two pieces that are going to impact negotiations that I see. Let's say that some version of that goes through. We need to talk about K3. Class size increase, that's something that we probably need to figure out. The counselors, the deans, the total of those items together, K-3, CSR, three counselors, two deans, is about 1.6 million. And as you see on your right-hand column on scenario B, The total negotiable items is 1.769. That brings us in a little bit under that number, and I think that there's a way we can work with our CTA partners to kind of arrive at that. But, you know, I know CTA's feeling the pressure right now, but I think we're all willing to clear our calendars to get together to try to get to some resolution. I don't want to be in March and not have any decisions, because if we do have to lay people off, they need time to look. And it's the right thing to do. But I wanted to just share with the board that's kind of where I land on what is like the most we could do to meet the requirements of the county and still move more aggressively towards fixing the structural deficit, but also still being able to keep things afloat and not lose good people. And I do have a handout for everyone.

[2575] Nancy Thomas: I agree with Ms. Crocker about at least one counselor at the high school for our seniors. I also feel strongly that we need an athletic director.

[2586] SPEAKER_15: Would you let us distribute that to the audience so they have it? I'm calling this a modified scenario B. And then we can work from that.

[2599] Nancy Thomas: I need to have everybody.

[2602] SPEAKER_15: Yeah, I was talking. I apologize, Member Thomas.

[2620] Nancy Thomas: Well, I was agreeing with you.

[2622] SPEAKER_15: But continue. Continue to agree, but I think that I wanted just to give the audience a chance to have what you have in front of you.

[2630] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. I feel strongly that we should have a positive first interim. And to do that, if we can do the revised scenario that you're showing us now and work it into a positive certification, I think that's the best thing we can do at this point.

[2663] SPEAKER_16: President Nguyen.

[2665] SPEAKER_19: Go ahead, Member Parcell.

[2668] SPEAKER_16: I think this adds an extra wrinkle, but I think we've stated several times in terms of our collective sentiment is that we want to stay away from the classroom and we want to do what we think is best. Going down this, of like, oh, I want to save this, or I think this is great, I mean, I think we've I hope we would all feel that everything is great. Um, and like I've mentioned several times in terms of like the K through three, it's just a class size, um, increase, right? Because it's not reduction CSI. Um, that if we start picking different pieces like this, it gets me kind of wary of being like, then, um, maybe we need more time to, to have everyone kind of pick that and put that together, it feels like it becomes then, what's your favorite thing to keep versus not, which is what we were trying to stay away from, right? So for me, kind of where I'm at in terms of this is, maybe this is a middle ground, maybe it's not, would be scenario A, because we're knowing scenario A, the way It would be 2.8 or approximately 2.7 that were, actually no it is 2.8 because it includes the green alternative education that we don't have to negotiate about. So it would be the 2.8 identified cuts with the understanding that we're hoping to get the three furlough days for negotiations. That's scenario A as I read it. And then knowing that if we have to change the numbers anyways in January and go through that whole process, of figuring out where we're at, then we would bring back the additional items for potential cuts. And then if there's any other additional items like programs or other things that we would add here. And then at that time, I guess, is when we would say, well, we need a consensus of out of all these things, what are we keeping and what are we not? Because then it makes you feel like, well, then I really want to, if everyone's putting in like what they want to keep, what they want to support, then I want to keep K-3 sizes where they're at. So then what does that mean? We have to figure out where we're going to get a million dollars. I don't think we should be jumping into that is my thoughts.

[2824] SPEAKER_14: It was not too long ago that we had an athletic director that was not full time. And I think that cutting back, not cutting out, But to have an athletic director and not a counselor, to me, is not the acceptable way of going. I think that we do need someone there to coordinate. I know that between a third to a half of all students are involved in athletics. And if anybody knows me, I'm really for athletics, because I think it's a real important piece of the high school education. However, I think that I come from a time when athletic directors were not full time. And I think that the job can be done cutting back in a limited amount. And I think that to say to cut it or not to cut it, I don't think is the answer. I think it's to get it down to a point that is workable. I also think that in terms of counseling, that we have a great need. We have always seen the need that we have at the ninth grade. And we need to have someone that helps the kids transition. And so maybe we bring back a counselor that transitions between the junior the junior high and the high school, getting a ninth grader started. Because if we lose 40% of the kids in some of the classes, that's ridiculous. We need to have someone that knows the kids. So I don't think we can eliminate all the counselors. I think that we need to have one for the seniors, and we need to have one for transition from the middle school to the high school. And the counselors know better than I do how that can look. But there's a certain job that has to happen. And they're going to have to figure out a way of doing that job. And I don't want to cut them all out, because that's an important job to have happen. I, too, would love to see all the class sizes staying as they are. But the reality is that we can't do that. And I think that if we have money that comes in, that would be the first thing that would be reinstated. But at this point, I don't think that we can afford to have anything but going to where we can go contractual-wise for all class sizes. And I know that affects the kids in the classroom. But the bottom line is, if there's extra money than that, from my perspective, that's the first place it goes. So if that were to happen, taking your scenario B modified, how does that affect it? We put one more council in for 132. So that's We're taking my 132,000 so it's 31.5 then we're going to add in Half that right director, and so that's 80,000 If you just take the salary and divide in half, I'm not sure whether it would work to that So then we're talking about $100,000 that's different. And allowing to have, it's assuming that we have the class size reductions. I think that we need to look at what our kids need. And to just arbitrarily say counselors aren't gonna go, I think is penny wise and pound foolish.

[3032] Nancy Thomas: Can I ask a question? The 3.2 million in your revised, will that get us positive? Do you think, Mr. Richards?

[3042] SPEAKER_20: There's enough in Fund 17 to clear us so that that would not be an issue.

[3049] SPEAKER_19: So my overall view of this is that, at least for over a decade now, we've deficit spent, deficit spent, and have had the structural deficit. But also now, 17-18, we're trying to, you know, We're trying to put that to essentially a screeching halt in one year. And I recall the meeting we had in the summertime where we advised staff, okay, let's look at a two to three-year plan in which we phase out this deficit so that it wouldn't be so impactful on staff that we potentially would have to lay off. These plans seem to kind of deviate from that and have tried to, you know, end or solve the problem right now, right here. this particular year and especially if the county is requiring 2.8, my view of it is, okay, let's get to the county requirement. If it's qualified, it's not the end of the world. Let's see what January comes out with. And it's, I think fundamentally it's unfair for, well I mean Lifesum, but it's unfair for this current batch of students and next year's batch of students to essentially endure the entirety of these cuts when we've been deficit spending for a decade. And we're trying to make up for lost time basically.

[3136] Nancy Thomas: Ms. Thomas. Well I think our deficit spending has, was ratcheted up. steady and then all of a sudden it went up like this you know so to me having a positive means we're still depleting fund 17 over the course of the three years. I think the January revise is going to be very positive so we'll be able to bring some of these things back but I think and I think if it The economy continues the way it is, and if we add more students next year than beyond what you've already projected, it'll look even better and we'll be able to bring even more of it back. But I'd rather start on the conservative side because we've always been saying, well, we'll take this $4 million and that'll just be our insurance policy in case we need it. Well, boy, by the next year we needed it. So I guess I feel strongly that. we should go for a positive.

[3203] SPEAKER_16: And again, I guess I'm in the middle of this, thinking that I think we need to address it now because that's what we've been talking about and we did say with the least impact we know that this has to get done. And I say in the middle because scenario A includes 2.8 right now with the understanding of negotiating the three fertile days to make us at 3.6. And then if we don't get to that, then it's all the things that we don't have to negotiate about are back on the discussion for having to cut some or all, depending on where we're at with the financial situation.

[3260] SPEAKER_20: Just in response, Mr. Wynn, to some of your comments, you'll recall that coming into this year budgeted option, it was 4,365,000. And so we made reductions coming in to start to deal with this. We currently have before you approximately 1.25 that are current year, the orange section. And then it's another, somewhere between 1.6 and 2.6. So we have been trying to implement it over time by not putting things in in the current year that would ratchet up our expenditures and to preserve the fund balance. That was in accord with the direction that we had from the board at the time that we adopted the budget. And so we are trying to be mindful of that as we move forward. We've simply just come to a point in time where some type of a number had to be built to complete the first interim report. We went with the direction from the last meeting of attempting to abide by the resolution, find 3.6 million, find it in ways that are not negotiable as the backup plan, and then to the extent that we have things that are negotiable or things that we want to switch and change around, we had additional things on there. So we're trying to follow the direction as best we can with the information that we currently have. And I'm very hopeful that we're going to have much better information out of the governor's office in January because all of the state's revenue reports so far have been positive. I just can't quantify what those are until the budget comes out.

[3349] SPEAKER_19: Okay. So in looking at scenario B modified, the items that I'm trying to read this correctly, under the last box on the bottom left where it's new items not requiring negotiations, pink means that if possible we'll try to buy those back via negotiations or improve budget come January. Yellow is we're limiting that as a cut, right? So therefore, it's a blank item taken off the list. So that means that we're leaving. So we are going to cut that admin secretary. We are going to cut or it's about a class size increase at adult, excuse me. But that still doesn't limit the principal to AP. I know that's a small amount.

[3405] SPEAKER_15: I think I have a, let me take a stab at a recommendation that might capture the conversation to this point, if I may. Mr. Richards, if you would track this for me, and let's run the numbers. If we take the bus driver off the table, that puts $58,901. If we take two counselors off the table, whatever that value is, We take the reducing the principal to AP off the table, and we reduce athletic director to 0.5. Can you approximate what that green number in green would be after that calculation?

[3446] SPEAKER_20: On the AD, it would either need to be 0.6 or 0.4, just because that person would have to teach the other.

[3451] SPEAKER_15: OK, 0.2 or 0.6. Let's say 0.2 or 0.6.

[3452] SPEAKER_20: Make it a 0.6 or a reduction of 0.4.

[3454] SPEAKER_15: 0.6. If you can run that number for us. It gives us a little bit of what we've heard. And then my next question would be, will that number get us to positive, is the next question. I don't have my spreadsheet. And while he's calculating that, I do want to remind everyone that 89% of our budget is tied up in staffing and salaries. And the largest employee group is teachers. That is the largest employee group that we have, so I know that Sometimes it doesn't translate when we're looking at spreadsheets, but I just That's why it's so important that we could keep the conversation going with CTA, and I think we will But unfortunately we have to kind of come to some deadlines with what we can control right now It wasn't too long ago that if I remember our salaries and benefits were like 84 percent

[3517] Nancy Thomas: We went from 84% to 89 or 90% overnight, spending a lot of one-time money that the state gave us over the last several years to create positions. And so, yeah, it's going to have to come out of positions.

[3535] SPEAKER_15: And in my conversation with the county superintendent, Ms. Monroe said, I'm not as worried about you as I am about other districts in our county. We know you guys are working on it. I've been keeping her abreast of every conversation we've had. So I think that's also bears noting that they know we're trying.

[3563] Nancy Thomas: While we're waiting, you know, I'd like to think that we are looking at the low hanging fruit, right? And some of the things that, you know, are not on the list, Overtime, for example, we made a cut in overtime, but the current budget has only $45,000 in overtime put in the budget. And none of that is for site-based admin assistants and things, or business people, business managers. And yet, in 2016, The business managers and site-based folks had $42,000 in overtime. So is this going to sneak in on us? I mean, if you're not, how come there was $42,000 in 2016 and now there's going to be no overtime at that level?

[3621] SPEAKER_20: You'll recall that during that time, we had a series of vacancies in the assistant superintendent of HR position. Most of that was in the human resources department, and there was an unusual situation where there was a lot of extra demands on the staff.

[3634] Nancy Thomas: Right, but I'm talking about site-level people. Oh, site-level. Site-level people were, in 2016, the calendar year was 42,000. That's not counting benefits. And now, It's only $45,000 that you put in the budget, and it's all MOT for the most part, and one or two others. So there really is.

[3660] SPEAKER_20: Well, that was because the board's direction was all non-funded. The only reason MOT has funded overtime is because of facility use. All the non-funded overtime was removed at board direction from the budget.

[3671] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, but I guess what I'm saying is, how are we going to manage that when We had so much overtime just last year. You know, I mean, supervisors can approve overtime. Are we giving them direction no overtime period?

[3689] SPEAKER_15: We have, and we're putting it into writing again. I know that we had a little slippage. We have been able to minimize overtime more, but not to the point where I'd like it to be. We are in the process of drafting another letter to all budget managers along those lines that only overtime that will approve will be in advance of the overtime occurring, not afterwards with prior approval. So that's something that I'm working with with HR to make sure that we have tighter controls over it. And we should be able to bring a report to you guys in the coming board meeting by January, I would hope.

[3723] Nancy Thomas: Another area of low-hanging fruit that doesn't have to be negotiated, I think, is filling classes at high school. 88%, if my numbers were correct, 88% of our electives are full, compared to 93% of our core classes that are not AP classes. And AP classes are only 86% full. If the staff can develop criteria around not having classes that fall below a certain threshold, I think we could save some FTE at the high school, but that means working between now and whenever we start doing the master schedule to make sure that those criteria are developed and given to the high school. That requires no extra work on our part.

[3773] SPEAKER_15: But it will require some counselors. We do have counselors help with that, and I think that's important to know. Do you have a number? Well, they're still here. Mr. Richards? Yeah, you're right, for this year. You're right.

[3784] SPEAKER_19: The master's, in regards to the master's schedule, especially at a single high school district, is a lot more complicated. It's not as clear cut as it seems to be. And so there are some very difficult decisions whether you run a single AP class of 26 students or not. you know, you're providing this great class and experience and elevating the level of curriculum for the students. But then again, if we're just comparing shared numbers of 26 over 33, yes, that's going to be a low percentage. But for a single high school in a single district, the master schedule is not as clean or not as easy as... Well, I appreciate that and I really noticed that when I looked at it.

[3827] Nancy Thomas: Yes.

[3828] SPEAKER_20: The answer to the question is yes, we can certify positive.

[3831] SPEAKER_15: So let's... Go back, tell us what the number is.

[3834] SPEAKER_20: So, just, you can make some manual notes if you'd like to your modified Schedule B. Down in the lower left hand section, the reduced one principal to AP would be $9,206 on top of what's already there. The bus driver at $58,901. Because of the fact that things have to happen in reverse order of seniority, the two counselors would be $132,307 and $132,097. The 0.4 reduction of the athletic director would be 58,182. Now, there would also then, by domino effect, be a 0.6 reduction of a physical ed teacher, because that person would go back to teaching phys ed. So we would actually have a 0.6 teaching reduction as well. I didn't calculate that, but I can do some quick math on that.

[3888] SPEAKER_15: What's the large number if those are taken out of the table? If those were coded as yellow and taken out of the cuts?

[3896] SPEAKER_20: So we end up with $3,215,477 as the amount of the cut.

[3901] SPEAKER_15: And would that get us to positive?

[3903] SPEAKER_20: We would still be positive at that point because we're projected right now at the end of the third year out to have $2.4 million on the bottom line, so we're okay.

[3912] SPEAKER_15: So that would be my amended recommendation.

[3915] SPEAKER_14: I would like to see But we make a final recommendation that we also have a list of things that automatically would be plugged back in as there's money. In other words, I think that we are having the conversation now, and I think that there are things that are really close. For example, it may be the class size for K through 3. I would maybe a counselor whatever it is. We decide I think that I I'm comfortable with what with what you've got here Mr.. Sanchez, I think that it is well thought out, and I think that that's probably what we're going to have to do But I don't want to have I think that we need to have a plan so that if more money is found for whatever reason that certain things will go in and Automatically.

[3967] SPEAKER_15: We'll continue to find other money and cobble together.

[3970] SPEAKER_14: Whatever it might be. OK.

[3972] SPEAKER_15: Yeah. So work to kind of keep that.

[3974] SPEAKER_14: But I think that we are looking for a positive recommendation. And the second thing is I'm looking for Fund 17 not to be depleted. I think we had, as the board had stated, that we wanted $1.5 million in addition to the 3% that's required by the state.

[3995] SPEAKER_19: And, and I'll, I'll, I'll take whatever staff recommendation is at the, at the end of this process tonight. You know, because there, like I said, there are so many, I mean, you've heard what you've heard. And so what, hopefully by, in open session, there will be a recommendation that we can approve knowing that the final decision is still within the timeline up until March 15th.

[4024] SPEAKER_16: And to member Crocker's point, I really would, in terms of prioritizing, it would be the K-3. CSI, if you get this class.

[4035] SPEAKER_15: No, it's actually a program I got there wrong. So that was my mistake.

[4038] SPEAKER_16: So it's called Classroom Size Reduction, even though we're a CSR. It's just the old program name.

[4042] SPEAKER_20: Oh, it's not the, OK. It's the removal of the program.

[4045] SPEAKER_16: OK, OK.

[4045] SPEAKER_20: I want to make sure. But it really is the fact that our current contract allows that the board, as the board is aware, because it exercised it in the current year, to the board can set it at 29. That's just old terminology.

[4057] SPEAKER_16: We don't have to call it that anymore. Sure, OK. So increasing class sizes in K through 3 We'll call it what it is. For me, in terms of my support, that would be the first thing that would have to come back in terms of priority for me to support anything.

[4074] Nancy Thomas: I would agree with that also, unless there should be some kind of wiggle room for us to discuss trade-offs when we get to the point where we have more money and can make some of those trade-offs. But I think having 29 at K3 When San Francisco just negotiated 21 at K-3, that's a big difference and it affects our kids.

[4101] SPEAKER_19: Okay. San Francisco also negotiated 11% over three years of a raise that they can't afford. Okay.

[4111] SPEAKER_15: I think we have enough to, I'll have enough to craft a solid recommendation based on that.

[4116] SPEAKER_19: Thank you very much. So that concludes our study session. Oh, thank you. Furloughs. I'm sorry, Ms. Parks, what was your original question again regarding that?

[4129] SPEAKER_15: It's we're negotiating that.

[4131] SPEAKER_19: Yeah. So that is what's on the table. The amount that's there is for everyone. We can't disclose what's being negotiated before we get in trouble here, right?

[4138] Nancy Thomas: Well, isn't there an intent there? And the numbers follow that intent. So the superintendent should be able to answer that question.

[4146] SPEAKER_15: We're negotiating furloughs with all groups. is the answer.

[4150] Michael Milliken: So yeah just just to clarify the intention is to negotiate the furloughs with all the bargaining units and then and then it can be rolled out.

No minutes available.