Regular Meeting

No content available.

[9] SPEAKER_40: 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.

[24] Nancy Thomas: We have just returned from closed session where we discussed the superintendent's contract, employee assignment. and we discussed and voted on a proposed settlement agreement and general release in case number 2018-04-02578 with a motion by Member Rodriguez and a second by Member Nguyen to approve a settlement agreement between the district and certain parents. The terms include payment by the district for educational services for the student in the amount of $2,000 and payment of attorney fees in the amount of $18,000 for a total of $20,000 and waiver of a claim by the parents. The vote was member Thomas, aye. Member Crocker, aye. Member Nguyen, aye. Member Rodriguez, aye. Member Preciado was not present, so there was no votes. I hope and thank everyone for helping us move this meeting on quickly. We were in closed session longer than we anticipated. We would like that any presentations be limited to 10 minutes or less. And since many of you are new to coming to our meetings, we limit comments for the speaker cards to three minutes. And we will give you notice, and you'll also see the notice up there on the board. So thank you for helping us move this along. So next, we move to approval of the agenda. I think there will be an item pulled, in which case, those of you that would ordinarily be speaking to that item are certainly willing to speak to the item during non-agenda item discussion or input. OK. So with that, I'd like to ask if anyone would like to pull an agenda item.

[144] SPEAKER_31: Yes, I would like to pull. Thank you, President Thomas. I would like to pull item 10.12, superintendent contract. We're still ironing out some of the details.

[155] Ray Rodriguez: Based on that, President Thomas' board, we've already informed the community that if they already fill out cards, then it would be under public comment on non-agenda items, that they would speak if they wanted to speak on the item on the superintendent's contract. the way we've normally done it.

[177] Nancy Thomas: That's what I just announced.

[178] Ray Rodriguez: No, no, but right, but I have more on that. And because of that, which we might have, that might take a while, in lieu of what you stated as far as trying to keep the meeting going, I'm trying to think of past precedent where we would allow public comment and then items to be, was it 20 minutes or, and then, huh? The total amount. The total amount, right. And then we could, moved it to the end. Is that?

[206] Nancy Thomas: Right. But we do not have a long list of speakers.

[209] Ray Rodriguez: OK, so we're good. OK, good. Thank you. That's all I have.

[213] SPEAKER_40: OK, so next we have the acceptance of the agenda with modifications.

[219] Nancy Thomas: So the motion was made by member Crocker. Do I have a second?

[224] Ray Rodriguez: Second.

[224] Nancy Thomas: To accept the agenda with removal of the superintendent's contract discussion. So please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. So next we move to public comment on non-agenda items. That is item 8.1, but we do have a speaker on item that we pulled. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to give the report?

[260] SPEAKER_31: Yeah, it's brief. A few things. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, members of the board. Recap, we had a good conversation earlier about strategic plan. There will be more work on that coming forward. You'll see there was a draft in the agenda in this last posting. In July, the staff will be updating that further. And I just encourage everyone to get a chance to take a look at that. And if you have any ideas or questions about it, happy to field some of those if you want to email me. But I think it's good that we're beginning to kind of solidify it. add more of the framework and make it a little clearer as to what we're up to and what we're going to be doing to plan that. So I just want to share that with you that it's available and we'll be making more drafts available, bringing back the next version or iteration July 31st for the board to review again. The next item I want to get the board input on a little bit is a little bit of a report but also kind of something to think about. Volunteer costs. for families that are free or reduced. And the cost to do fingerprinting and to become a volunteer can be costly and a barrier. And I think that's something I plan to bring back for us to have a more formal discussion in a future agenda. But I know it's something that we are concerned about is how do we allow people to volunteer. But then if they don't have the means to pay for those fees, it becomes a bit of a dilemma. So I didn't know if there was any comments guidance for me and I do plan to bring it back formally.

[363] SPEAKER_33: My understanding is when we voted on the proposal and I stated this is part of my vote was that that would be addressed and we were informed that through, I don't know if it was through which specific fund but that would be addressed so that equity was in fact considered and taken into account. That's the only reason I supported it to make sure that people weren't We're not allowed to volunteer.

[390] SPEAKER_31: We do want it to be a barrier.

[392] Nancy Thomas: I think it's important to make sure that whatever fund it comes out of, it's a legitimate expense that can be charged to that account.

[404] SPEAKER_50: So what I'm familiar with is that the site principals have discretion they would set aside a certain amount into a budget account or whatnot, and each principal has the discretion to use that or authorize the use of that account to pay for that fingerprinting for specific volunteers or volunteers to their specific schools.

[424] SPEAKER_31: I will work on a policy development that has more of that definition in it, but I wanted to get some input from the board. Thank you for reminding me of that. The next item to update the board on is We do have agreement on a three-year teaching calendar. The calendar committee was successful in completing three years of calendars with a progressive effort to work towards having first semester finals for secondary schools completed before winter. And what was approved gets us there over a three-year period. It was kind of a nice solution the committee came up with. And it gets closer to that goal with actually getting to it by the 2019-20. By the 2020 school year, we'll be there. No, I think I had it wrong. It would be by three years out we would get to the full implementation. The good news is we have a three year calendar that can be predictable to families. So I just wanted to thank the calendar committee for their work on that. And I want to remind the board that Friday updates will resume from superintendent's office to the board back in August. Many of the staff that provide updates to the board on and off, but I'll resume Friday updates to the board in August, although you'll be getting regular email as needed. That concludes my report at this time.

[509] Nancy Thomas: Thank you, Superintendent. Next, we move on to public comment on non-agenda items. Item 8. Mr. McCarthy, would you like to speak to the superintendent's contract during this time?

[527] SPEAKER_48: you only because I don't know when it will come back or if I'll be available to speak I'll speak. The limited issue of the proposed raise and contract extension for Mr. Sanchez only because the question the timing is questionable in light of the budget we're presented with. Mr. Sanchez was retained for a three-year contract and that three years is not up so it's a it's confusing why we're discussing this at this time. is the justification for renegotiating the contract to not only pay him more, but also, I know that's not in the contract yet, but it may be, but also to secure his employment for a longer term out of concern we might lose him for greener pastures. If so, I request that you say so, so that we all know the score. Because I'd submit that the board should free Mr. Sanchez from the constraints of his contract and invite him to seek out greener pastures if that's what he wants. That's what the teachers have been doing. in droves. But the difference between them and Mr. Sanchez is he's pulling down 235K and they're not. And they can't afford to stay with us. And so we're losing out. We have Spanish teachers who don't speak Spanish. We have counselors potentially via a mobile app. So what's more than just confusing and what's distressing is that we'd be contemplating a raise for our superintendent while discussing the continued financial strife that our district is facing. and the raise doesn't help. The disconnect is troublesome. How do you justify the impropriety of giving even more money to one of the highest paid, if not the highest paid superintendents of the surrounding Alameda County districts? Oakland's superintendent gets $6.11 per student. Fremont, $8.43 per student. Pleasanton, $17.96 per student. Livermore, $22.94 per student. Mr. Sanchez and Cass Strap-Newark, Beats them all, $39.17 per student and rising. Why are you giving him a contract that starts in 2018 but retroactively paying him as if he's been under that new and improved contract since 2017? He came in under a three-year contract that lasted one year and is transformed into a four-year contract. Forgive my ignorance, are we also adding two director level positions to the district office? Was that money sitting in the same pot where we found the money to give Mr. Sanchez a retroactive raise? please say it ain't so. It doesn't make sense, especially when, in our next breath, we're talking about our financial shortcomings. And while our budget concludes that we're going to engage in deliberate deficit spending, that's a quote, deliberate deficit spending, and we're supposed to be learning from our mistakes, I don't understand where we're at. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I hope that is the case, because I hope the board would not act like this. Candidly and bluntly, it's a bad look. It calls into question the board's ability and credibility. Please find some time in the agenda, today or otherwise, to clarify these points for those of us keeping score on this board's wins and losses. Thank you.

[714] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to non-agenda items? OK, next we move on to old business nine, a superintendent or a Salinas, would you like to introduce this, please?

[734] SPEAKER_26: Yes, good evening. I come forward with a second reading or presentation around augmenting a course of study for students who would like to study a language other than what we offer currently, Spanish and French. A little bit of background, Section 51243 of the California Ed Code, It states that the State Board of Education can adopt rules and regulations prescribing standards and conditions and essentially allows school districts to accept private school coursework that is completed in another subject area. Specifically for us, this would be for the language of Arabic. We are recommending approval of this. We have a significant number of parents who are coming forward and are requesting this. At the last time I was here, some of the questions that the board posed recommended was that we can put in a timeline for review and so I do come forward that I will be working closely with Fremont Unified School District who is now in their I believe their 12th year of implementing and accepting this school as part of their course of study or alternative for students and then we'll also provide two on-site visits two times a year to ensure that we are working closely and also overseeing it and I also want to share that this program was approved by the University of California's department as it relates to Arabic language, and then of the Near Eastern Studies at UC Berkeley. Also, we did a little history, because I know one of our board members had shared, she thought that this might have come forward before with a different subject area, and so we could not find all the documents, but it appears that about 10 years ago, we did approve a private school that offered a Chinese language course of study, and we certainly accepted that as coursework for our students. In researching our surrounding school districts, Fremont Unified has about 15 schools that are private schools that offer this, and so students who want to pursue a language that's not offered at the school district can certainly do that, and then we would work closely with the submittal to put it on their transcripts. I also want to say that part of this is coming to us from our parent base. I know a question was asked from the board the last time, would we do this for any other language? We would if we don't offer the language. Part of the on-site reviews that I will do will be part of looking at if we have enough of a critical mass and enough students that would warrant even for Newark Unified to bring on board Arabic as a language for our district. We would certainly do that, and I had a great meeting with the petitioners. And they certainly are on board. I mean, this is mostly for them. It's about providing their students with another avenue and another option. And so we come forward this evening with certainly our recommendation to approve this. And this also is in progress with New Haven Unified. And so we're hoping to be able to support this as the Tri-City. And this is a private school that has been working closely with Fremont for over 10 years as well. Thank you.

[926] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. several members of the public that wish to speak to this. Afifa Arif.

[941] SPEAKER_12: Hello everyone. I am Afifa Arif. I am 11 years old and I graduated from sixth grade at Birch Grove Intermediate in the Newark Unified School District. I'm really excited about the idea of Arabic coming into the Newark Unified as someone that has always been interested in studying languages. I think this is a great opportunity for me to have the chance to study a language that is spoken by so many people across the world. I hope Arabic gets approved in the Newark unified so students can go all over the world.

[997] Nancy Thomas: I apologize if I'm not pronouncing these names correctly.

[1000] SPEAKER_11: So hello, dear members of the board, members. My name is Hala Binkosmi. And I'm going to eighth grade at Newark Junior High School and I would like to take Arabic in high school. And I kindly ask all of you to please abort this for our benefit. And I would like to say if I went to high school just one more year and I will go to high school and I really don't want to learn a language that I really don't like to learn like Spanish or French because I I know how to speak French. So I really want to learn Arabic so badly. Yeah. Thank you.

[1053] Nancy Thomas: Thank you very much. Faisal Ali. Is that how I pronounce it?

[1060] SPEAKER_44: Hello, everybody. My name is Faisal Ali. My name is Faisal Ali. I've been here in Newark for the past 11 years. And I'm happy to call Newark our home. And thank you for the school district for providing this opportunity to enrich our kids' future and allowing this Arabic program to be accepted. My son, Mohammed, he's an eighth grade student. And he's been attending for the past one year the Arabic Academy. I drop him off, pick him up, I do regular meetings with the teacher, and it is very well organized, and I see all good things happening with learning another language. He's already speaking two languages at home, and this will also further enhance, and studies, point studies have shown that learning a language increases kids' ability to perform well in his academics, socially, and throughout his career. So far, in over one year, he's having a basic reading, writing, and vocabulary, and he's able to carry out a very low-level conversation in Arabic. And I have seen his improvement in his social skills with this interaction having another language, it builds confidence in him. And so students like Muhammad can benefit from this. And I encourage you to look at this program thoroughly and follow what other school districts have done. And I see nothing but good things happening to our students.

[1185] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. Amra Arif.

[1193] SPEAKER_02: Hello, members of the board. My name is Amra Arif. I am in college. I'm a second year at University of California, Berkeley, and I'm also an intended Arabic major. And I would like to address you today too because I feel like learning languages is very important. especially in our current climate in the world right now, you know technology is making the world a smaller and smaller place and having a language barrier is honestly an impediment like having the more we learn languages the more we're able to relate to people that we otherwise would have difficulty relating to and from everything from politics to the social sphere to business to technology our world is shrinking and it's really important for us to to learn a lot of different languages. And I feel that Arabic is a really good start to introduce to our public school system because it is one of the most commonly spoken languages in the world. In fact, it's the fifth most commonly spoken language. And if I had this opportunity in junior high, I honestly feel like I would be so much better off right now in college and be doing so many more advanced things with my language. So I would really request you, the members of the board, to approve Arabic as a language students are able to engage with the community. So students are able to gain more social skills are able to open their mind and experience a culture that is not their own. Thank you.

[1265] Nancy Thomas: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else like would like to address this. Agenda item. We would move on to comments from the board. Mister Wynn and then miss

[1285] SPEAKER_50: There's no question about the value of language and learning other languages. And as an educator, I know full well the benefits of that. So the question I have for Ms. Salinas is, when we were discussing this course with Fremont Unified, because you said they've had it for 12 years, did they have it as a CSU A to G course approved, or was it just an elective credit approved?

[1311] SPEAKER_26: It was essentially for credit approval. Once it's approved and placed onto the transcripts, then UC CSU accepts it. So it does become acceptable and they have had students who have already been accepted to the university and it counts towards it on their transcripts. Once we place it on our transcripts. And I was very, I wanted to be very clear, because I know that was the question you asked last time. And they have had, many students have already gone through, and they were accepted.

[1340] SPEAKER_50: I'm having a hard time reconciling the notion that, you know, as a principal, everyone tells me that if you want your course to be A to G accepted, or C to C accepted, it has to be on the A to G list. It has to be on UC Doorways, or else it does not count. And that's been nailed into my head over and over again, right? So how do we reconcile what you just stated with the fact that the course isn't on, now Arabic itself is approved on the CSU A to G, but there are other schools, but none in Fremont and none in New Haven.

[1375] SPEAKER_26: So I, it's a, you know, I even was able to pull one of our, one of our colleagues who retired a few years ago, Mr. Maxwell, and it is a little known law according to him, Ed Code, where it does accept it once we place it onto our transcript. So I can certainly continue to dig, but they haven't had students have all been accepted for UC and CSU, and it has been accepted. As A through G? Once it's placed on their transcript, so it's accepted for credit towards the language requirement.

[1407] SPEAKER_50: That's just something I'm not at all familiar with in any course. Like I said, there might be a nuanced exception to language that I'm not aware of, but from my understanding of it, course in our catalog that we want to be A through G has to be on UC Doorways. And that's why it exists in 10 public high schools, right? And so why wouldn't, so the question is, if they've done it for 12 years, why wouldn't they just submit the course for approval?

[1437] SPEAKER_26: I can't speak to that. I'm not sure what Fremont has done in that respect.

[1444] Nancy Thomas: Can we do that?

[1446] SPEAKER_26: Well, we we don't have oversight. This is a private school. So Actually, I might ask one of the petitioners to come forward may ask you to come forward so we don't Because we don't we don't Dictate how they run the private school that would be up to them to do if they wanted to make it you see what the provision in the Ed Code allows is that once we comply with all this, and then we actually even have an existing board policy 6146.11 for alternative credits towards graduation that actually also allows us to do it.

[1482] SPEAKER_50: It's a graduation and the credits on the transcript, that's within our discretion. But the aid to GCSU portion of it is not within our discretion. We have to submit that for approval. And I'm just curious how Fremont, has been able to bypass that for the past 12 years. And if we are going to do this, whether that would then apply to us, is there anything in writing that says that we can do this, or has it just been a past practice that they have utilized?

[1512] SPEAKER_26: So I can't speak specifically to, so the question is, would we apply for UC, CSU, but that is not in our purview.

[1524] SPEAKER_20: We would be happy to go do that, but that was never a requirement. And we have been going by school district by school district. Right now, there are students here that are in San Jose State College. My daughter got admitted to UC Riverside this year. Her AG requirements for a foreign language was through this program, and it was accepted. There is a student here. Ammar is here. whose credits were accepted in San Jose State. And it was through that provision that it was board approved in Fremont and it was on the transcripts of the student and that it gets accepted. And it says as a foreign language Arabic.

[1572] SPEAKER_50: Was that the only foreign language that student took or was there a possibility that?

[1577] SPEAKER_20: So there are right now in Fremont about 12 languages.

[1582] SPEAKER_50: For example, a student could very well be acceptable to... That is the only language.

[1585] SPEAKER_20: That was the only, okay. Because they took Spanish and Arabic, right? No, no, no. Most of the students are taking just this language. And that satisfies the school's graduation requirement, which is two years, and it satisfies the AG requirement for state and the UC. UC.

[1605] Nancy Thomas: Okay.

[1607] SPEAKER_40: Ms. Crocker? I'm just going to say that I'm delighted that we have all kinds of opportunities for kids in terms of language. There's no way our school district can afford to offer all the possible languages that we could. And so I'm delighted that this is an option for them. And even if it's only an elective credit in terms of where they go, I think we can certainly give credit for that because it's something that we can't offer at this point. And we have done that in the past for other elective things, whether it's A through G or not. I think it probably should be. And that's something that you would have to figure out between you and the UC system or whatever system in the college, because they're the ones that determine whether a class is A through G or not. But for our graduation requirements, I certainly am in support of accepting this.

[1663] SPEAKER_50: But the problem is that they can't submit for ATG approval because I don't think they're an accredited private institution or public high school, correct?

[1669] SPEAKER_26: Correct. And they don't have to be. And so this is the... I'm not quite sure what more I could bring forward.

[1676] SPEAKER_50: I think we... If the UCCSU... Just for clarity on that provision that Fremont is... Or that loophole that Fremont is using.

[1685] SPEAKER_31: I would speculate that it has something to do with them being a private institution, much like charter law applies differently. And it also might be somewhere in the law relative to accreditation. So I'd have to look at that. We can still do that. I believe that delaying this decision is not beneficial. I think we continue to do that research anyway and try to get to the root of it. At this point, the oneness of their acceptance is through their own schools. And these are their students, and I don't see where there's a problem with that. And I think that's why the recommendation is to approve. And I think that we can find out. I think it does raise a question about A through G. But at the same time, I know that charters and private schools have a little bit different set of rules than we do.

[1734] SPEAKER_50: And maybe that's where the little charters and private schools do get accredited. And once they're accredited, we're to receive transcripts from those schools and adopt those into our transcripts. I do not believe, correct me if I'm wrong, I do not believe the institution is officially accredited through WASC or any official institution, correct?

[1752] SPEAKER_26: So it's a private school and they don't have to go through that provision. Correct. For me, looking at just using the ed code and using our current board policy and then having also had students that have a school district that has done this already with the same school. I mean, I don't think we should delay this, but I am happy to work with UCCSU and get something in writing from them to give some assurances to the board. But I feel, I take comfort in working closer with Fremont Unified and having their track record of working with so many private schools also. And this is new ground for us. Mr. Rodriguez.

[1791] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you, President Thomas. Thank you for coming back. I know last time you were here a while. And very patient. No, no, we appreciate it. Language is very important to us. The more languages our kids are exposed to, in my opinion, the better we are. I was very fortunate growing up in the Bronx and going to a school that offered multiple languages. So I got a chance to do Greek, Latin, French, Spanish. And I want the same opportunities for our kids. And I have a lot of close friends that do speak Arabic, and hopefully I can learn it. And so I just had a question. So would the academy be open to any of our students if they wanted to go to the academy?

[1847] SPEAKER_20: Absolutely. It is open to every Newark and Fremont Unified School District, and it is open only for those students. outsiders because we want to make sure that it is only, we maintain the sanctity of the approved system. Thank you.

[1863] Ray Rodriguez: And what's your opinion on offering the same opportunity to other groups? Like for instance, whether it's the, I know we have Spanish in the schools, but this is more focused.

[1878] SPEAKER_26: Yes, this is strictly a school for teaching Arabic.

[1881] Ray Rodriguez: No, I understand, but if a Spanish group wanted to do an academy, And similar, are we, or a Hebrew group wanted to do something, or Chinese?

[1892] SPEAKER_26: If another private school wanted to come forward with the same, yes, we absolutely would look at that. What I think I heard from the board the last time, and I would be in agreement, is that we currently already offer Spanish and we offer French, so we really wouldn't be interested in that. We would be more interested in languages that we don't offer.

[1908] Ray Rodriguez: Right, so it would be open to Chinese, Hebrew, and others.

[1912] Nancy Thomas: Yes, if another private school wanted to. Ms. Crocker and then Mr. Winnigan and then myself. I will pass.

[1920] SPEAKER_40: Okay.

[1923] SPEAKER_50: Thank you. Have we examined the potential implications as far as FTE and our foreign language department is concerned?

[1928] SPEAKER_26: Yes, we looked at that and also in speaking with the petitioner, their hope is that if we have enough critical mass and students that we would one day perhaps offer it here in the school district, but they also recognize that we don't. And we currently have, I believe, I can't remember how many Spanish sections we have now, but overwhelmingly, our FTE is solid with Spanish. And then French, we're working on making sure we fill those classes as well.

[1958] SPEAKER_20: We are, just to add, we are now a non-for-profit organization, and we are here just because there's a need in the community, of student community, and that is not being fulfilled. If the school district is offering that we would happily withdraw it. It is not, we are not in this because, just as long as the student needs are fulfilled, that is all we do.

[1984] Nancy Thomas: Good, yeah. Mr. Preciado.

[1987] SPEAKER_33: Alright, make sure it's on, okay. So I kind of already explained my thoughts last time around, but I wanted to point on the third paragraph, the last sentence, so the reviews are going to inform NUSD, this is kind of where I stood, I wanted to highlight that, that Hopefully we get enough student interest so that we build Arabic at the high school. And from my perspective, to make sure to add to that piece would be that not only that we build an Arabic language course at the high school, but that it's A through G approved. Because that's one of the biggest pieces that you want to make sure that people are taking the class and it counts for those requirements as well. So from my perspective, in terms of moving forward, to add language that we get a report back on your reviews and see if there's a need so we can start planning for that need.

[2043] Nancy Thomas: And then finally, I would like to say that I think this is a great opportunity for our students that they wouldn't otherwise have. I appreciate that you are offering it. I feel comfortable that over 10 years in Fremont that the CSU-UC system has been accepting this toward the language requirement. And also, I have not heard any evidence that it has caused a problem for anyone going to a CSU or UC system. So until and unless there's a problem in that regard, I think it's a good program. And thank you very much. Excuse me. Could I ask one more?

[2082] SPEAKER_40: I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. OK. Yeah. Is there a start date? In other words, there are people that have been taking the class. So we're talking about starting as any activity to take as of September 1 or the beginning of the school year. So we're not going to go back and collect people that have taken the classes before, is that correct?

[2100] SPEAKER_26: Correct. So my understanding is that now, with your action, it is starting for the 18-19 school year.

[2105] SPEAKER_20: Thank you. We adhere to the calendar timeline that is of the school district.

[2111] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation by staff.

[2115] SPEAKER_33: I'll second with an amendment that staff report back after the second review to see if there's a need to build Arabic language through A-G course. I'm fine with that.

[2138] Nancy Thomas: So Mr. Rodriguez has accepted the amended motion and this motion has been seconded by member Preciado. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you very much. Congratulations.

[2166] SPEAKER_40: Thank you for coming.

[2194] Nancy Thomas: Next, we move on to item 9.2, board policy 0410, non-discrimination in district programs and activities. This is coming back for a second reading, at which point we are able to approve it or hold it over if there's any issues. So do I have a motion? Or does anyone want to discuss this? Does it move to approve? Member Preciado moves to approve.

[2219] Ray Rodriguez: Second.

[2220] Nancy Thomas: Member Rodriguez seconds. Please vote. Five ayes, thank you. Next, we move on to new business. 10.1 is approval of the 2018-19 local control and accountability plan, the LCAP.

[2249] SPEAKER_26: Good evening. This evening, we return back as our previous school board meeting, we had a public hearing. As background, the LCAP process has been through a process of community meetings, LCAP advisory committee, and our previous school board meeting on June 5th, Director Saavedra presented an overview of the process and the outcomes and this evening we come forward for approval.

[2282] Nancy Thomas: We have people that would like to speak to this agenda item.

[2288] Cary Knoop: Mr. Duke. Good evening board. Executive staff. I basically have one question about it and it kind of ties together with the NTA contract. So I also put in a speaker card for the NTA contract because it's kind of a chicken and an egg situation so I don't know how this is going to, or maybe it's not an issue, maybe I just misread it. So my understanding and I joined some of the LCAP process meetings is that this year no bonuses, retention, whatever you want to call it, any cash compensation to certificated, classified, material, or contracted employees will be given this year. That's, I think, how it's codified. What is it, 381? No, 318. And I just want to get a confirmation that that's true. So because in the NTA contract, it says something that I'm not sure how I should interpret that. So I just want to get clarification on this. And I think we need to be, you know, obviously transparent about whether bonuses or retention things are given to employees out of the LCAP money. So that's it. Thanks.

[2379] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. Ms. Parks.

[2394] Cindy Parks: I also attended many of the meetings. And as you were appointing your advisory committee, I had some concerns about the number of participants. And as was shared at the last meeting, not a single LCAP meeting had quorum. There were a lot of concerns that have been raised through the process. The numbers, you had appointed people, and then they turned around. are arbitrarily reduced the voting number of members that they looked at as far as what is quorum. But beyond that, there were some suggestions that were made at the last meeting by Nicole Aizant, who was a sitting member, and by a few other people to look at what you learned after now these four years to perhaps apply that to the next one. that we're going to be able to do that. When it's working through the process. To go along with what Mister push out of said earlier in regards to the volunteer. That was also mentioned at the last meeting by Nicole eyes on that perhaps some of the L cap money can be utilized for the fingerprinting a background checks and that would fit into goal for maintaining the level of parent involvement by sustaining the level of There's your funding source. It was just a matter of it being incorporated into the LCAP. So I don't know if it's too late for perhaps, or I mean, I know you're going to approve it, but as was said to the committee, is that it's a living, breathing document. So perhaps it can be altered. I would also like to get a response to what Mr. Newt said, because it does, there is some language in the NTA contract that says that the .5 bonus, stipend, whatever you want to call it, is being paid out of the LCAP, so I would like to get a response to that.

[2529] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. Since it does have a bearing on the contract, that ratification, perhaps staff will address that when we look at the contract ratification and clarify.

[2544] Cindy Parks: How can you approve the LCAP not knowing whether it's in here or not?

[2548] Nancy Thomas: I think that's immaterial in terms of... We shouldn't interrupt. She has 30 seconds.

[2554] Cindy Parks: It's a public comment. I think that it's relevant. It's part of your... It's part of the next... It's not a Q&A session. The item 2 after this one. I think it's relevant before you approve the LCAP so you know what you're approving. Is there no one here that can answer that?

[2578] SPEAKER_33: As you know, it's not a back and forth. I understand that. That's why I wanted to give you your space to speak. OK.

[2585] Cindy Parks: It's an item on the agenda.

[2586] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. I will address it when we have our discussion of this item. OK. I think there's more folks. Yeah. No, that's it. So would the board like to discuss this?

[2606] SPEAKER_33: Mr. Preciado. I kind of outlined my thoughts a little bit last time. Like where I'm at. Some of the pieces, so like 1.3.5 provide after school STEAM enrichment activities. I have a question about that. I want to make sure that that's going to, the way I read it is that that would start by the beginning of the year. Is that correct?

[2634] SPEAKER_26: Yes, yes, that is the plan. We were looking at, and I know a board member also asked at the last meeting, certainly looking at monitoring program implementation every month. That's something we have to do in terms of lessons learned. But yes, for STEAM, that is our hope. We're also looking at, later on you'll see in July, of a stronger partnership with Ohlone College. And that might be another place where I'll be able to share more information about that plan.

[2664] SPEAKER_33: go through the process in terms of making motion, but to your point about a report back, I would suggest that the first board meeting in December, we report on activities outlined in the LCAP, and that in March, or the first interim, so that it aligns with the budget, that there's a report back on the activities outlined. So, for example, in December, we kind of get seen, we have the iPads that were approved, and these are the specific STEAM focus, so what are kind of the success stories, or the, measurable outcomes, and hopefully those are outlined so that when we report back we say, this is what we planned to do, this is what we did, and then this is how it affected the children.

[2714] Nancy Thomas: OK, I have several comments I want to make. I really think that there needs to be some idea given in the LCAP of the planning process and the plans that we plan to do to meet the needs of our unduplicated students as well as success indicators and measures to the extent that we've met the goals this year and how we plan to meet them in the next two years and maybe during your hopefully regular updates to the board We've budgeted $160,000 for low-income after-school intervention programs and $100,000 for low-income, and then $100,000 for English learners. To my mind, extending the day for our most needy students with math and language arts intervention is extremely effective. Clearly, we had that plan this year and we didn't meet it, I think, because we couldn't recruit teachers, but maybe we can be working or if we can't have, having that same problem next year, maybe we could be looking at some of these organizations that provide tutoring after school and contract with them so that we have money that we can spend on intervention and that we spend it. So, if we ask our teachers to volunteer, instead of, that we would hope to have these intervention programs in place by the end of October at the latest. Maybe we can start making sure we're recruiting in the summer now for teachers and coming up with contingency plans if it's clear that we're not going to be able to get our staff who are probably burned out at the end of the day to stay after school. There was a lot of underspent money, and we came up with spending it at the last minute. The Apple product was some of it. But there's no indication of where that underspent money came from. And that all goes toward explaining the actions in our success or not success in carrying out the actions in this year's LCAP. So I hope we look at that and maybe, you know, identify and show in the LCAP where we weren't able to meet. We make general statements about it, but I think we need to make specific statements. We plan to teach, we plan to have 20 students in this program. We were only able to accommodate 10, or whatever that might be. The one issue that really concerns me is the Ohlone for Kids, and I've communicated that to you. there was a $44,000 price tag, apparently, for this program. Anything that's that high in cost is very close to the limit of what staff can approve. But I would hope that you wouldn't say, oh, we don't have to approve it because it's $2,000 less, that you would bring to us the MOU. Because I have questions like, if you had brought it to us, I would have said, How are the children being chosen? 25 from each school is what we were told in the Friday update, but it was never presented to the board. Are they underserved kids? These are students whose parents ordinarily would have to pay for summer camp for their kids. And if we have 25 slots, and what if they go to, if you target them for only needy students or unduplicated students, what if there's more that want it? Or do you have some kind of a, lottery to make it fair and equitable and it could be in looks like a scholarship for these individuals and scholarships generally don't fall in with Ed code and if it's handled as if it's a scholarship and handled as a scholarship there are rules around how the district has to do that so I don't I think we did this very quickly because we said oh we got to spend the money and I'll enrichment is great for I love enrichment. I think, you know, the more we can do, that's something the parents have been asking for. But most enrichment programs that I'm aware of that are after school or in the summer are paid for. They're not provided through district funds. So anyway, my last suggestion would be, as we go forward, the Berkeley LCAP is, I think, an exemplar of the way we should look at our LCAP because it has measures, it talks very introspectively about what didn't work and how they're going to adapt it to work. We do some of that, but we do it only in general terms. So I really hope going forward that staff comes back to us and lets us know that there's not going to be money that you find in May and quickly have to spend, that you are tracking the spending every month and that you are making adjustments during the year. And if it's a big ticket item, like came to us last time, please come with a plan and describe the plan to us. OK? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? If not, I would entertain a motion.

[3043] SPEAKER_50: I move to approve.

[3044] Nancy Thomas: Mr. Nguyen moves to approve.

[3047] SPEAKER_33: I'll second, but I wanted to add an amendment. So for me, I would move to approve with adding that the staff would report back in the first meeting in December with essentially an LCAP update report, which would include the different items that are outlined in the LCAP and how much has been spent. And then another report back in March or first interim on the activities outlined in the LCAP. So essentially the report back to make sure that's part of the motion. Are you okay with that?

[3086] SPEAKER_50: No, I'm just wondering if that's appropriate to be placed into the LCAP. Because LCAP, we're just approving a document that gets submitted.

[3092] SPEAKER_33: Yeah, but for me, this is the only time that we have to outline that process.

[3096] SPEAKER_50: Yeah, it's truly valid. But should that be done in another... item, another motion, a resolution or something?

[3102] Nancy Thomas: There's no agenda item, so this would be the only way... Well, could we do it during board requests and then maybe even make sure that we have full consensus to the board or majority consensus that we do that?

[3115] SPEAKER_33: But then that's taking an action item, so I don't know in terms of the process piece that if we would be allowed to direct to do this and for me then if it's not part of the process then it's not formal and then that means

[3129] SPEAKER_50: So you make that comment, and by next December, if that doesn't get done, then in May, don't approve the LCAP.

[3135] SPEAKER_33: But that's what I'm trying to do through this process.

[3142] SPEAKER_31: I would suggest part of the larger element here is the board's desire is to how are we doing this monthly. How are we monthly progress monitoring, not only the budget, but academics, and I think it becomes part of how are we structuring our meetings, and are we spending 60% of our time discussing strategic imperative number one. So I think that, I think I'm fine with an amendment, however you want to do it. I just think that if we really look at how we structure our board meetings and look at this idea of continuous improvement, and as we've kind of outlined in our strategic plan, are we moving the needle on the scores, and how do we know that? I think what I would offer as kind of a suggestion would be to have kind of a common reporting template for each school. So they're telling us, OK, what's your plan? How are you analyzing the data? What's your goal? How are you doing? In how many cycles of intervention have you tried? And what result is it for kids? I know that's something that's already coming, and I think it's something that, you know, Ed Service is working on it.

[3208] SPEAKER_50: But what we're approving tonight is the actual LCAP plan. Right. And to deviate from that, we'd have to bring it back for substantial changes. Right. Including what you mentioned.

[3217] SPEAKER_33: Well, so for me, it's actually the report. So as part of this would be moving to approve the LCAP plan with the additional pieces of getting a formalized, like a report. There could be more, but by the first meeting in December, we get

[3233] SPEAKER_50: But how would you recommend that we incorporate that into the actual report itself, the document that we're accepting and approving? There's no space in there to do that. It's whether we're approving this document or not, right? And I would say we approve the document with the notion that staff please listen very carefully to what we're saying and then if we really, really are adamant about what you mentioned, perhaps make that as a request at the end and put that as an action item for the next meeting.

[3264] Nancy Thomas: And there's also another way we can do it, and that is make it a specific goal. As we finish now the superintendent's evaluation, we're creating goals. And that could be one of the goals that we require.

[3278] SPEAKER_50: Yeah, because we can't do anything that changes the document.

[3281] SPEAKER_33: I'm OK with that. For me, it's, as you know, I'm trying to include these formal processes. Because on some things, we get report backs, and other things I understand there's so many different moving pieces, but for me, it's like this is one of the only opportunities that we have to formally request it as a whole. So I guess I would just note that I would support that. But if these report backs don't happen, then I can support them moving forward.

[3309] Nancy Thomas: So your original motion stands. OK, so the motion was made by Mr. Nguyen and seconded by Mr. Preciado. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. So next, we move on to approval of the 2018-19 budget. We have one member of the public that would like to speak to this, and that's Ms. Cindy Parks.

[3366] Cindy Parks: You've made some substantial cuts this year and had many, many budget meetings. And I would hope that you would continue to keep monitoring the cuts that you have made. And I just, I'm concerned because where you've said you didn't want anything, you wanted adult ed to be self-sustaining, there's this $36,000 price tag. that's being transferred with a projection of $11,000 for this year. I'm assuming that that will somehow get worked out. Maybe that won't happen. I don't know. I'm concerned because of Fund 11. Fund 12 has been a deficit. It was projected it was going to be $42,000 in the hole. I'm not sure exactly how revenue changed on that and how everything worked. I don't know whether all of a sudden you stopped having having to subsidize some of the funding for that. But it looks on paper here, paper. It's going to be in the black, hallelujah. But you need to monitor. There is Fund 17 shows a $22,000 allocation coming from local revenue. It's a new item. I don't know whether that's interest that wasn't ever plugged in before. You did just transfer 3.3 million out of there, so I would have thought that you would have had some interest. Now that you're down to 1.9, you're going to have 22 coming in? I don't know. But clearly, the diligence hasn't been here previously to make sure that you're not deficit spending. And I would hope that you would continue to be as diligent as you have been the last year attending all of the meetings so that you do have a positive budget. One of the things that does concern me is if you look at the multi-year, things aren't as rosy, and yet in the pages projecting layoffs, they don't show that. You show the reduction of CSCA is four this year and the reduction of management is three, yet that is not carried out over your three years. So I just, again, I just hope that you monitor and keep a close eye on the budget. Thank you.

[3513] Nancy Thomas: Would staff like to address this issue before we discuss it?

[3519] SPEAKER_31: I think we could have staff answer board questions in the discussion. I think that's probably more appropriate.

[3526] Nancy Thomas: Okay, do we have any... Is there any other members of the public? No, we don't have any other members of the public. No one has put a request in. Do you have a request? Oh, there it is.

[3549] SPEAKER_33: So to who are we directing this to?

[3551] SPEAKER_31: I'd like Kim and Lowell to step to the podium, please. Lowell is with the firm that's been assisting us in absence of our CBO. Help me with your last name again, Lowell. I'm sorry. Shira. Shira. And Kim, Lowell can help answer some of your questions.

[3572] SPEAKER_33: Perfect. Yeah, so my question. was going to be around the adult education fund, because I know we specifically said that it should be funding itself. And that in light of cutting all the different pieces from the students, that we felt that this program needs to be on its own. So I don't understand why there's this inner fund transfer for $11,000 for the next year's budget. And then we actually spent, so I don't understand What happened there? It's on page 39.

[3608] SPEAKER_31: No, we spoke to this issue. I'll let you guys finish, but I think part of the initial dilemma we had is staff did not have time to develop a plan in order to get to self-sufficiency. We're going to be working with staff more closely now to be able to get to that. But we felt that because the programming that they've worked on for next year is something that is still valuable to the community. We wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to get to plan to get to self-sufficiency. I would let you guys kind of respond with the numbers and where we are with that.

[3652] SPEAKER_41: So Adult Ed has two sources of income. One of them is the Looney Consortium Block Grant. And we will actually have a fund balance at the end of this year with that. The program that is struggling is the community classes. We do anticipate around a $36,000 contribution from general fund. That's why you see the net of 11,000 because you have a general fund that you have a, you have a general fund contribution and then you have the Ohlone Consortium fund balance at the end, which is going to be around 26,000. So that's where that 11 is. So the piece we're working on this summer with the administrator for on the program, is to come up with a plan, whether it's increase in fees, minimum class size, combination of those, number of sessions offered, whatever we can come up that we think is going to work, working with the teachers of those programs. These programs have been in Newark for over 30 years. They are very valued by the community. So we would like to make that effort. There will be no summer classes. So that will give us the summer to work before we get to classes again in the fall.

[3724] SPEAKER_33: I guess, sorry, I don't have a poker face, but my frustration is that this is part of, I mean, I don't, I don't take away from the fact that all of these programs that we offer are valuable and that it's super important, but when we're talking about things affecting like the class size ratio or things where we've continuously, we've said one thing made it clear that it will be zero. It will pay for itself. And that's the goal. Then you need to have a plan. And I know it's focusing on this particular piece, but I think it's indicative of what we've been doing for a long time, which is why it's really frustrating. So for me, I'm struggling with this to be like, you know what, 2017-18, this is where we're at. But for the 2018-19, like we did last time, for me it would be, making it zero, and that means that you'd have to raise the fees or figure it out. And all these programs are valuable, but then we have this conversation that we're saying that, look, we value the kids, but we're going to increase class sizes, but then we're going to continue these programs for the community. And that's where we have to have the conversation. Everything is important. I know it's only, in the big scheme of things, only 11,000, but then that's what happens every, or from my perspective, we're doing that a lot more. oh, it's a small amount here, small amount here, and then all of a sudden it's a huge amount. So can the program function by increasing the fees and zeroing it out for the 2018-2019? That was my question.

[3828] SPEAKER_41: That's what we have to find out. We have to find out if a plan that will allow us to do that is a viable plan. Superintendent Sanchez did mention that. Time has been an issue. If you recall, our administration has been changing from year to year at that site. We do have an administrator who is with us and working on this. And we're hoping that we'll have complete resolution. If not, then programs will probably have to go away. But we're hoping to make the effort to see if we can save them this summer.

[3863] SPEAKER_33: So the only thing is we're proving it now that we're proving it for the whole year. Right, like we've proven now that there's no incentive to, or at least there's less of an incentive because now you have those resources as opposed to, from my perspective, we zeroed out. We've already made that commitment that we were gonna zero it out as much as it hurts. I mean, then we zero it out, and then if it's that important to the community, we explain to the community. Like, we are really, this is where we're at. Let's do some fundraisers, let's figure it out. These $11,000 that we're transferring in from the general fund is $11,000 that doesn't go to kids in the classroom.

[3910] SPEAKER_31: We certainly can do that. I think we certainly, if the board wishes to zero it out, I'm happy to notify staff that it's going to go away. I do think what I can tell you is in this instance, and as I briefed in part of it, I might have to go back into executive session to give you more detail, was they weren't given an opportunity to develop a plan. And now Kim and Lowell are trying to pick up the pieces. And we still can get to zero potentially. But we have to engage staff and try to come up with a plan now. But I'm happy to take that responsibility and say I'll work with them to try to get to self-sustaining by next year. And maybe we won't have to do this. We could stay on top of it. But if the board chooses to just say no, we're mending this and we're going to zero, I can deliver that message as well.

[3967] SPEAKER_33: But there will be fallout. There will be fallout. And that's the piece I struggle with. It's because if we make certain things, there's always going to be fallout for every single particular program. So that's the hard part of like, it's like, OK, well, yeah, that's why I'm struggling.

[3983] SPEAKER_31: That's easier for us, but it's harder for the community and it's harder for teachers. What we're asking for is some time to try to resolve this with staff. But for now, we have to approve the budget. So if it's zero or if it's $11,000 in a way, we're OK with.

[3999] Nancy Thomas: Mr. Rodriguez and then Mr. Nguyen.

[4003] Ray Rodriguez: I just want to be clear that I support adult ed 100%. I think that a school district that doesn't offer adult ed is not a full school district or a complete full school, in my opinion. That being said, last year we were having this discussion, and we said that we would ask that they be zeroed out. And to me, it's the school district's responsibility, and it starts with us, as well as the administration, to make sure that the message gets over to the school that that school's got to, you know, they have to charge accordingly. They have to increase their tuition, or, you know, per participant. Years ago we had more offerings there and I think an adult school, like there was a DMV class that people would take. So that's another issue, another area we can look at and how we can bring in additional revenues. So the school district, in my opinion, has a responsibility to work with the adult school to make sure that things are in place to charge more for having the classes and then make sure that everybody understands that we have to zero out this program, and we have to do everything we can. So there's got to be a plan from the school district, and we discussed that earlier, to the adult school on how to make this happen. And I am frustrated also, Member Purcello, because we talked about this last year, and we thought it was being taken care of, but it isn't. So I think it would be a big mistake if we cut the funding off. I think we have to do our due diligence and make sure that we have a plan in place and share with the adult school on how we can make this happen.

[4114] SPEAKER_16: I'm not sure why things didn't happen this year, but for myself, given the scope of the program and the a really relatively small amount of the deficit. I don't see a reason why the district staff working with the adult school staff can't bring this under control. It's certainly not something that's totally out of control. It's something that's within, should be within our ability to bring under control relatively quickly. I don't know why it hasn't happened already, but I think there's been staff turnover that's been mentioned to me at least as part of the issue and that given a little bit more stability here, I think you'll be pleased moving forward.

[4164] SPEAKER_50: Mr. Nguyen. Can I offer a compromise? Perhaps if we budget for 50% of what we were intending to budget, that gives them a six month kind of soft ramp up to get fiscally solvent instead of pulling the rug from underneath them, so to speak. And so maybe that will give them some leeway to augment or raise funds.

[4190] SPEAKER_33: I guess I would ask, is that, you see that as as being feasible?

[4196] SPEAKER_16: I believe so. It's six months, certainly. Yeah. To bring back a plan, I have no question.

[4203] SPEAKER_50: I mean, just put in a budget for the next six months, which would constitute half of what we're advocating, and that would give them time to come up with a program or do what they need to do to raise the budget.

[4216] SPEAKER_16: Yeah, I can't see why not. Would you?

[4217] SPEAKER_41: No.

[4224] Nancy Thomas: Crocker?

[4225] SPEAKER_40: Are we finished with that piece? OK. I'm talking about second year and third year in the projection. The fact that we are $2 million more expenses than we have income. I thought we were down to zero. It was going to be a balanced budget. Even though there's money in a balance, unless we're talking about encumbered money, that's going to be spent. I'm wondering why that $2 million was allowed to? Stay there.

[4255] SPEAKER_16: Right. Well, I can tell you what that $2 million consists of. It's really just three items that we're talking about. And it would be looking at how we can deal with that. There are different ways of dealing with each component. Really, the three components are benefit increases. And you all know about the STRS and FERS, significant increases moving forward. That's $900,000 right there. The next large piece is the increase in the restricted what we call 5,000 accounts, which is the services and operating expenses. We need to do some more research on that. That's largely more than likely special education there's been a lot of fluctuation in the services and operating expenses in special ed in your restricted accounts over the last couple years and we need to really do some more research on that work with our HR department in terms of how much they've been able to actually staff schools with with employees in the areas of teacher or psychologists and speech therapists, or to what extent is the district going to have to contract out those services at extraordinarily high prices. So that's another issue that we'll be working on. Another one, the really smallest piece of this is textbook adoption, which is an additional $300,000 currently budgeted for 19-20. So those three items together are over $2 million. And we'll be working on what we can do to reduce the impact of each of those, or what budget cuts might be necessary. Because really, there's not a whole lot we can do about benefits, STRS and PERS, but there are some things we can do about the other areas that we've talked about. And then finally, another piece of good news is that it looks like the budget that will be signed by the governor does provide more revenue to Newark than what's currently in this adopted budget. And we'll be getting back to you, we're required to get back to you within 45 days after it's the budget's approved, to show you what the impact of that state budget is on Newark, both in the 18-19 school year, but it'll have an effect on 19-20 and 21 as well, as we compute the LCF out those three years. So I think over the next few months, we'll get a better handle on that $2 million in 19-20. I'm hoping it goes down. I hope, you know, that, you know, staffing stays solid in terms of position control, expenditure controls that have been mentioned here several times tonight are maintained by the district office, especially by the business office. And that we'll be able to move forward to 19-20 with not nearly the deficit that we're currently showing. There's a lot of things need to really be, you know, diligent in maintaining the budget. I'm not saying there's no problem. What I'm saying is I think the problems as they appear today appear to be solved.

[4474] SPEAKER_40: When we look at the history of budgeting, that's been the answer that has happened most every time when we are in deficit spending. There's a structural budget, a certain amount that we have to have to keep the doors open. And so wherever we have to cut, We have to cut, and if more money comes, we can always spend that. But I think it has to be, the budget has to be balanced with, unless there is a one-time kind of thing. For example, you're talking about the 300k textbook. That's a one-time thing, and so that may be something that would be, because we need to have the textbooks, something that would be doable, but not everyday expenses. And whether we like it or not, we're paying more money for the benefits. And that has to be figured out in the budget, so the budget is balanced with that increase being there. And I think that's been the frustration that we've had as a board, is that the last minute the budget comes, and then we're caught in a situation where we have a time, and the budget has to be approved. And the best of intentions, and it's happened sometimes, where yeah, there was no spending of the balance. But other times, it didn't happen. So I think that when we do the budgeting, it's got to be budgeted. with the worst case scenario, not the best.

[4554] SPEAKER_16: So that. And this is not a best, this adopted budget is, in my view, not a best case scenario at all, but it's one that gets us started and working in the right direction.

[4568] SPEAKER_40: Yeah, well, I think that, I guess the frustration from the board is the fact that it needs to be balanced when it's brought to us. And then at that point, we can always add. We can always spend more money. I don't know anyone that doesn't know how to do that. But it's very hard to cut once it's there, once someone's there and it seems like the program's there or whatever it is that we had to cut. And I don't think taking from our balance is the answer. Because we, as a board, had asked that we have twice the required 3% in terms of a contingency fund. So that means we would have 6%.

[4602] SPEAKER_16: Well, we'd still certainly be Something that the business office should be able to do quite easily is bring to you what would need to happen in order to bring that 19-20 into balance, as well as keeping 18-19 in balance.

[4622] SPEAKER_40: Well, the 18-19 seems to be very close. Yes. Yeah, 18-19. So next year is very close. But it's the one that's out, and I understand that you are projecting. And so it's imperfect. And I understand that budgets change and the governor changes, and that's all stuff that's there. But I think that we have to have the worst case scenario in terms of budgeting, not the best. And I know you say it's not the best, but it's $2 million more for 1920, and it's $200,000 for the 2021.

[4658] SPEAKER_16: But we can certainly work with the superintendent on when we can bring back a plan that shows you what we recommend in order to bring that into balance.

[4671] Nancy Thomas: I think that the balanced budget for 18-19 speaks to the hard work that staff and the board has done all year to balance a budget. The increase in STRS and PERS of $900,000 and the increase in probably special ed of 900,000 is... Every district that I've heard of is having problems with STRS and PERS and they're having trouble with special ed. It just seems that we can't wait until next April to start talking about how we're going to balance the budget in 19-20. We have to start now to working on how we're going to do that and... I appreciate that. Yeah, please. I appreciate the time you spent, both of you spent with me today explaining all of this. I just think it's commendable what the business office has done on bringing this budget forward. Thank you. Would I get a motion for approval?

[4732] Cary Knoop: I move to approve.

[4733] Nancy Thomas: Mr. Nguyen moves to approve. Mr. Rodriguez seconds. Please vote.

[4739] SPEAKER_33: Are you moving to approve as is or with the 5500?

[4745] SPEAKER_50: with the amendment of the 50% funding for adult ed as we discussed.

[4751] Ray Rodriguez: And Ms. Rodriguez? I'll take my second back. I don't think we should do that. Sure. I think we should just approve the level year staff recommended.

[4759] SPEAKER_40: I'll second it then.

[4761] Nancy Thomas: OK, it's been moved by Mr. Nguyen and seconded by Ms. Crocker with a minor amendment of half of the budgeted deficit for adult ed be removed by mid-year. Please vote. Five ayes, thank you. Four ayes, member Rodriguez votes no. Next we move on to 10.3, ratification of the tentative agreement between the Newark Unified School District and the Newark Teachers Association. Mr. Knoop.

[4813] Cary Knoop: I hope I don't get accused of being going in circles because now I'm kind of, you know, first of all I just want to congratulate that the budget is approved and it shows that I was skeptical that this budget could be done out in time but I was wrong about that and I think it's really great job and the numbers this year look really good and hopefully next year This will be better, you know, so anyway. So the NTA contract and, you know, so basically isn't it great that we have transparency, right? And I'm sure everybody is for transparency. And so I looked at the public disclosure document and it says a half a percent stipend. I think that's the terminology used, half a percent stipend. Now, I just want to make sure if I write it, if I read it correctly, okay? So it says in that public disclosure document on page 3, that LCAP money will be used for that. And I just want to make sure it says the current year, so that I'm not confused by, you know, the year we're currently in, but that it's actually for, you know, whatever, October, November, that the current, that the LCAP that was just approved, 0.5% goes to NTA. My concern is, one is like, you know, we have a lot of Me Too clauses left and right, so, you know, once NTA gets it, You know, a contract to them, please, one or two. And before you know it, everybody wants it because somebody else gets it. And I think there's a philosophical question as well, of course. If you look at LCAP, LCAP money is to improve the scores of our kids. Now, I can imagine something with that when you have teachers, you know, or keeping teachers. But, you know, let's say a CBO, for the sake of argument, would, if you give a CBO a stipend, does that really help the kids' performance, you know? So anyway, I just repeat the question. You just approved an LCAP document that doesn't supply any information about giving 0.5% to NTA to certificate it. And as far as I remember in the meetings, that was not discussed. It was taken out. Instead, we were going to have counselors for that. And so my question is, am I reading this document wrong, or is there, yes, And I think transparency is really great. If the board knows the answer or staff knows the answer, we need to be transparent, I think. Thank you.

[4964] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. Would anyone like to speak to this?

[4970] Ray Rodriguez: I'd like to move that we approve the ratification of the agreement between Newark Unified School District and Newark Teachers Association, also known as NTA.

[4979] Nancy Thomas: I'll second. Mr. Rodriguez moves, Mr. Preciado seconds. I would like staff to respond, if possible, to whether there is a half percent in the LCAP supplemental funds for that contract.

[4999] SPEAKER_41: No, I'll have to look at the form Mr. Newt referred to. My understanding is last year, yes, the retention stipend was paid out of 0500, which is what we call our LCAP. This year, my understanding, and the way it's been budgeted, is that the stipend will be tied to the way the employee is paid. So if the employee is paid out of 0500, that is where the stipend will hit. But everyone else, it's going to fall on how that individual is coded and paid. So I will take a look at the document Mr. Knuth has referred to.

[5035] Nancy Thomas: So is the way it's presented to the county office correct?

[5040] SPEAKER_41: Yes. Oh, that's correct. OK. I'd have to re-look at the wording to make sure that's what it says.

[5047] SPEAKER_26: Yes. I echo what Ms. Lola said. So that's the only time that it would be paid out of the LCAP. It depends on how the person is paid for their work. OK. But this previous year we did have it.

[5059] Nancy Thomas: The previous year was from there. OK. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. Congratulations, NTA.

[5086] Ray Rodriguez: There's nobody here. Yes, there is. Timothy's here. Oh, I'm sorry. That hat confused me.

[5096] SPEAKER_31: He's hiding behind the TV.

[5097] Ray Rodriguez: You're gonna come up or what?

[5100] SPEAKER_32: Okay.

[5104] Nancy Thomas: Okay next we move on to the agreement with ADIS architects for a district-wide facilities master plan and deferred maintenance plan. Superintendent would you like to introduce this?

[5114] SPEAKER_31: Sure and we do have representatives from ADIS here.

[5117] Nancy Thomas: Oh wait we do have someone to speak to this from the public. I'm sorry Mr. Newk.

[5127] Cary Knoop: Just a couple of comments. You know, I was privy to the advisory committee, and thank you for selecting me on that. And I think that was a really great experience. And, you know, I think ADIS is a, I was very impressed, and I think they're going to do a good job, I think. But I got a little bit of a sticker shock. You know, I looked at the earlier numbers and then, you know, $515,000 is a lot of money and we're not a very wealthy district. So if we could try to, you know, kind of, I don't ask for lower billing rates, of course, but if there are certain things, you know, that are duplicated in terms of assessments and things like that, I think, you know, that would be really great. I think it's also great that we are starting a process of community engagement, that we truly want to get a process where we first make an assessment, a technical assessment of what are the possibilities. You know, should we build another school? Should we not build another school? Or are there alternatives that come out in that process? So a technical assessment that we know the cost benefits of all the options that are going to be presented. And that we don't have a next stage where community is involved and stakeholders are involved. And we, you know, together with the district, the board, and the stakeholders, and the community, we work towards solutions that work for everybody. And, you know, I think that's the best model. I think from the get-go, I think the district would want to make sure that the final decision is the board, you know, with the district. and that the community is not confused about that. The community does not decide, but it should be a process where everybody is involved and works towards something that is beneficial for all. So I hope this is going to be a real positive endeavor. Thank you.

[5252] Nancy Thomas: Superintendent?

[5254] SPEAKER_31: I'd like the team from ADIS to step forward, if they would. And I would suggest that they would field questions from the board at this time. Just before we start, would you just introduce yourselves and title, and then I would like the board to have a chance to ask you questions.

[5277] SPEAKER_28: Sure. Thank you very much, board trustees and staff, executive staff. My name is Anna Harrison. I am the senior design strategist at Aedas Architects.

[5287] SPEAKER_17: And my name's Andrew Seymour. I'm a project manager with Aedas Architects.

[5293] Nancy Thomas: Okay, board, do we have questions?

[5296] SPEAKER_31: Is there a presentation? The proposal's been in there, I think the... But they don't have a separate presentation tonight? I don't believe so, no.

[5307] Nancy Thomas: Considering the cost, we did ask that you come here this evening, and I have letters from Mr. Doe, who's the head of the organization, and I have enough so that the public can also see the copies. Could I have one more?

[5327] Maria Huffer: Oh, sure. Is that enough?

[5330] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. I think it might be helpful if I read relevant parts, because I did ask Mr. Nguyen and I were an ad hoc committee. The process we used was to work with the superintendent to, again, look at all five proposals that came before us. had a committee of Mr. Simon, Mr. Knoop, Mr. Nguyen, myself, the superintendent, and a member from the city, assistant city manager. And we carefully read all five proposals, and we looked at two proposals as standing above the rest. And we invited Adison and one other proposer And they spent considerable time answering our questions. And we asked them to ensure us that there was going to be a very robust community engagement process. This letter from Mr. Doe, which I'm sure you can respond to as well, talks about what happened with what we asked you to do. We asked you to remove the energy master plan. Mr. Doe's letter says, yes, we did, but work that was in the energy master plan also pertains to the master facilities plan. And so some of that cost actually is being done anyway. So there was a savings of removing that energy master plan, but it wasn't the entire amount. Then, because we asked for multiple meetings beyond what was in your original proposal, and I believe this letter says that there was a, they included seven meetings, 25 campus-specific workshops. They're now intended to be more robust based on design thinking principles and methodologies. And maybe you can speak to the, the increase of cost in terms of the request that we asked you to have a more robust community engagement. And Mr. Nguyen, since you were part of the ad hoc committee, do you want to add anything to what I just said?

[5484] SPEAKER_50: I was a little surprised at the sticker shock myself, alluding to what Mr. New had mentioned. I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for us to closely examine the scope of work at this juncture. and see if there's any kind of duplication or any elements that perhaps staff or district can do and parse out that can get this pricing to more friendly terms, so to speak.

[5516] SPEAKER_28: So I can't really speak to what we might cut out of it. I can tell you that we designed the engagement process per the superintendent's request. We have planned incredibly robust stakeholder engagement with each and every one of the school sites, including visioning and design thinking. And the purpose of that is really to create empathy among different stakeholders and get everybody's diverse buy-in. So when we realized how critically important that was for the district based on the strategic planning and the STEAM district that the board has taken a directive on, we basically had to up our game in terms of what we could offer you. And so we feel like we're offering you the very best and appropriate program and given that of course.

[5585] SPEAKER_50: Is this best and appropriate or best and final?

[5589] SPEAKER_28: It is by no means best and final, it is best and appropriate.

[5592] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. Mr. Preciado.

[5597] SPEAKER_33: I was going to ask because one of the most important pieces that we've outlined from the board is the robust stakeholder engagement but without kind of seeing the presentation of what that looks like, if you can explain what to you, in your mind, robust stakeholder engagement meetings look like?

[5618] SPEAKER_28: Yes. So we went over an outline with the superintendent of what we propose. And at this point, we have two meetings each with the elementary schools. We have three meetings with the junior high school and four meetings with the high school. The first meetings are, and then prior to that, we have the district wide kickoff. That meeting, which is ideally with stakeholders from the entire school district, is a half day event. And we design a series of activities that lead into a guiding principles and a statement of vision, along with a deep understanding amongst all stakeholders of everybody's individual points of view. We've done this with several districts now for the last couple of years. We're refining and customizing the process for your district. That first meeting will yield sort of the blueprint that we then take to the individual schools. And each individual school has an opportunity to customize and respond to the guiding principles. The second meeting with each school is design thinking, and if you've ever experienced it, it's an incredibly dynamic process. It's, we adapt the Stanford D School process. So we go through the Empathy Divine ID8 prototype test. Everybody builds prototypes of ideal learning environments. And what we find is that when we go through these processes with school districts, they become very engaged, very excited. very bought in to the vision for the district. And it really creates a very welcoming environment for improvements to happen in the future.

[5736] SPEAKER_33: So I guess I have some follow-up. So because it sounds like there would be great meetings, but if we had examples or specific examples, not just about the meeting, but sample outcomes from the meeting. So I know that would be at least helpful for me to kind of see if this is the process, what are some of the outcomes that would happen? So that's one part. The other piece is I don't see what type of community outreach or communications plan that you would enforce, because great to have this amazing setup for these meetings, but if no one's there, the same people, then we kind of lose, from my perspective, the robust aspect of it.

[5780] SPEAKER_28: Yeah, and we do rely on the district participation in getting the word out and making selections or recommendations and invitations to stakeholder representatives. I apologize for not having a presentation prepared. I have presentations that show active engagement stakeholder engagement processes and and people building models and outcomes and data. We gather a lot of data. We crunch the data. We come up with analysis. These district-wide facilities guiding principles we've used in other districts, in Mr. Nguyen's district as well, and it created the entire master plan. So this is a very important piece of the master plan, and I'd be happy to supply you with presentation.

[5838] SPEAKER_33: I guess yeah from my perspective for half a million dollars without kind of seeing what the again we're having this conversation about the measurable outcomes right like of what our samples that that you would have it's really hard for me to kind of see I mean unless yeah to see what those outcomes look like unless you've seen samples.

[5859] Nancy Thomas: Well there there was a lot of detail in the proposals and we saw pictures of people doing the work during the meetings, and maybe Mr. Nguyen, you're next anyway, maybe you could describe that process as you experienced it.

[5873] SPEAKER_50: It was a positive experience as far as the process and the community engagement, so I can't speak to that. And as far as the stakeholder engagement, the robustness, it was good. I chimed in because I wanted to speak to the comment earlier about, you know, we have eight It's best and appropriate, but at this point, it's not best and final. I think what we need to do is, and look at your timeline. You have authorization to proceed assuming June and the kickoff in June, also the walkthroughs in June. The June timeframe for our district, June and July is like a low or dead month, so to speak, because we're out for summertime. What may be more appropriate would be the kickoff and initial walks and whatnot to being in August as we're ramping up from return from summer. With that being said, let's take the opportunity in the next month or so to get to best and final and so that we can, you know, we can honor the comments that Mr. Newt made, because I mean, being part of CBOC, he was part of the group, but he did make the comment as far as the sticker shock. So, let's try to get to best and final. Let's have perhaps the authorization to proceed at the next board meeting, which would be July 31st. And then at that point, have the timeline kind of pushed out by a month with the kickoff and then the walk commencing in August would be my recommendation.

[5967] Nancy Thomas: That makes sense to me. Ms.

[5968] SPEAKER_40: Crocker? I have a question. What was the original proposal and what was the amount of the original proposal? Was there a figure? I believe it was $450,000 or? No, it was over $500,000.

[5982] Jodi Croce: 591.

[5982] SPEAKER_28: Yeah, it was close to 6. And it's now 515.

[5985] SPEAKER_40: So it's actually cut back.

[5987] SPEAKER_50: Well, no, no. But it was 591, including the energy plan, though. Correct. Right.

[5991] SPEAKER_40: And how much is the energy plan? Was that going to pay for itself, was the energy plan?

[5999] SPEAKER_28: In kind of shorthand, we roughly doubled the amount of time that we are putting into the stakeholder engagement meetings. We doubled the amount of meetings and time not the amount of time meetings but the amount of time so the that's what you see as the as the quote-unquote sticker shock is so when we come out of this we will have what so one of the things that that we are finding with with districts is that we we achieve mind shift in terms of the stakeholders awareness of the impact of the learning environment upon curriculum and curriculum upon the learning environment. And our stakeholders start to understand the synergy between space and learning and it becomes They become educated clients from our point of view. They become very deeply committed to how to use the learning environment as a complete piece of curriculum, the entire campuses. So we're affecting kind of a deep change in the way that people view space.

[6070] SPEAKER_40: So you're looking at taking, say, a K-6 school. doing restructuring or looking at what we have and what needs to be done. I'm thinking in terms of what kind of product if I were teaching at Snow School, you know, what would I expect would be a difference?

[6090] SPEAKER_28: So you might see an embracing of learning communities. You might see more embracing of co-teaching. You might see flexible furniture environments that include spaces for deep introspection, spaces for performance, spaces for collaboration. You might see much more integration of the outdoor environments and use of the outdoor environments, activation of the outdoor environments. And what we do, our design thinking prompt is to describe your favorite learning experience. And what we're finding is that everybody has these deep memories of learning experiences that were very project-based, very hands-on, that required them to move around, required them to have variety in their space. And we watched the light bulbs go off in people's minds when they understand that we can affect learning outcomes by how we design space. And then they start to actively design space. So we're not telling them how to do it. We're creating this fertile environment for a mind shift and then they grab it.

[6164] SPEAKER_40: And so we need to have money available to support what is happening at, say, Snow School.

[6171] SPEAKER_28: Yes. And, you know, we talk about that these shifts happen. We build trust. We build some information. We give information about pedagogy and curriculum that's going on around the world. about space that's going on around the world. And then we ask people to apply it to themselves personally. So the process that we've designed for you is very specific. Each campus has their own set of meetings. We purposely have not grouped campuses at this point. We wanted to give each campus their own space to experience this. We want to spend enough time with the bigger campuses, the junior high and the high school, so they have a real opportunity to embrace this concept of space and curriculum being self, you know, iterative.

[6228] SPEAKER_40: So when we talk about a facilities plan, we're not talking about the structure of the roof or the walls, but rather the utilization of what is there. So you're not concerned about the health of what is there. or rather how to use the space that is there?

[6245] SPEAKER_28: Well, so the deferred maintenance piece, the safety of the schools is in the master plan as well. So I sort of deal with the pedagogical vision and how the space is optimally being used for teaching and learning. And Andrew deals with the roofs.

[6264] SPEAKER_40: And how is this being paid for in the budget? Is this from? Russian. Russian money? OK. Thank you.

[6274] SPEAKER_31: And I think it's kind of back to Member Nguyen's point of best and final, but I would not want to limit the team to do it the way we want them to do it. I think they've been through this process more than us and that's why we've identified them as the person we want to do it. So my question is, what's the number? that doesn't give sticker shock. Because I don't want to go through another exercise and come back and say, well, could it be a little more? Could it be a little less? I'd like to put it to rest. That puts us in a bad negotiating spot. Right, right. But what I'm saying is, well, but transparency. I don't need you to tell me now, but I'd like to know that if we're going to engage in this. Because part of the planning in the summer was going to be a lot of work with the district to try to map it all out, get a lot of feedback, get to know our primary source documents, get to know where we've been, where we're going. So I think that, and it may be not appropriate to say here in public, but I would like to know what is the number because I don't want to waste A, this is time, if it's within 20,000, 40,000, 50,000, because what it'll be is lightening the depth of planning that we gave to them. And the most important thing that we talked about as a committee was we want a deep, robust way to do this. Now we're saying dial it back a little bit. We can do that. But then we're going to consolidate schools by region. I mean, I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm just trying to figure out, the sooner we can start, the better.

[6367] SPEAKER_50: From my experiences in dealing with construction and architecture and design and whatnot, I think best and final doesn't necessarily mean it's a scale back of scope. Best and final is how far each entity is willing to move to get an agreement.

[6384] SPEAKER_31: But what I would say is my concern is if we had staff to do a lot of this, we would already be doing it. Our staff is already over kind of burdened on a lot of stuff. We don't have a lot of this expertise in-house to take on this work. I think that some of that is shoveling more onto the staff here to do, and I worry about that. So I think that in the appropriate way, if you give me an idea of what we're looking for, I can work with them. to get to something by the end of July that is more comfortable?

[6416] SPEAKER_50: Let me give you an example. In their billing sequence, there's a billing charge of $40,000 for the act of billing, right? So the act of billing is certainly not a tangible thing. So like I said, it's, although I made the comment previous about, you know, parse it out and let's see what staff is able to take on, et cetera. I think the best and final is exactly what it is, best and final, and see what both sides have to offer to each other to get the deal done. Right.

[6447] SPEAKER_33: Mr. Preciado. So for me, it wasn't more about the cost. It was more about, so we have two documents as opposed to a presentation of outlining. So we've been talking about making sure that we're using our resources wisely, but if I saw the presentation of what the measurable outcomes were and kind of how we did before in terms of the full on different pieces, I would be more inclined to support it because for me, if I approved it at this time, it would be like, okay, to the community, yeah, we had two documents and here's the documents and this is how we decided to spend half a million as opposed to here's the sample documents of their work and their, which I really appreciate your in terms of the design thinking and referencing the D school and thinking about how to engage stakeholders. I really do, just seeing some tangible outcomes as opposed to just the proposal for me would have been helpful for moving forward at this time.

[6517] SPEAKER_31: I would like to respond. Part of that was the direction we got was the subcommittee would meet and do some of that vetting, and we've done that. We've done some of that vetting, and I think that we're pretty comfortable with ADA's ability to do the public engagement. Now, in hindsight, should we have done that as a whole group? We could have. But that's not kind of the direction we got from the board.

[6538] SPEAKER_33: You're right. And again, I trust the vetting. That's all. You're right. I trust the vetting. It would just be like, here's a sample, like we did for the other ones. Like we had the other two groups, we had their 50-page document of here are samples of what it would look like. saying like, well, look, I mean, we could still get that.

[6557] SPEAKER_31: We already have it.

[6558] Nancy Thomas: We already have that.

[6561] SPEAKER_50: We all of us did that in the ad hoc. That's what we we poured over.

[6565] Nancy Thomas: We poured over there.

[6567] SPEAKER_33: And then she's like, I guess for me would be sharing for the community. Right. So like, I don't know if there's, I mean, we can't edit now, but as a

[6575] SPEAKER_31: We could share things tomorrow. That's not a problem. That's not a problem. Because for me, it's not. Did you want to say something?

[6580] SPEAKER_28: Well, I always carry around pictures of things in action. And this is not, I don't know if I'm allowed to show this to anybody, but this is a little sample of some of our stakeholder groups in action. And this could be turned into a presentation that I could email to you. tomorrow. We have so much data. We can post it on the website.

[6610] SPEAKER_31: We can email it to all employees.

[6612] SPEAKER_33: So then for me, I guess trusting that and getting that, making sure that the community gets access to that as soon as possible, then from my perspective, that would be OK then moving forward and trusting your recommendation moving forward at this point.

[6629] Nancy Thomas: I'm comfortable. Mr. Rodriguez wanted to speak and then I'll.

[6632] Ray Rodriguez: No, no, just quickly. I think we told ourselves that we were going to try to, as we looked at every item, we were going to work ourselves through it, and we're not doing that. Thank you for coming. We asked two board members to be on the committee to look at these proposals. Sometimes you have to trust the people that you actually say, would you go to these meetings? I have to rely on your recommendation based on the meetings and everything. Nobody wants to spend $500,000 on anything. OK? But this is something that's needed. It's money that doesn't impact our budget, because this is money strictly from Russian funds that we can use to pay for this. And I'm excited about doing it. And so I have to lean on Member Thomas and Member Nguyen to tell us, hey, this is a good way to go, and let's get this done. And that's what I like to do. I have another question.

[6690] Nancy Thomas: Let's get this done. Yes, Ms. Crocker.

[6693] SPEAKER_40: Will we need any more information about facilities planning before we can make decisions about what we're going to be doing and going on? In other words, will this give us enough information to proceed with completing and looking to plan for whether we need a new school? This kind of thing. Is this going to give us that kind of basic information?

[6715] SPEAKER_31: Some of that's embedded. I want to allow, tell me your name. Andrew. Andrew to respond to some of that, because some of that's embedded in.

[6724] SPEAKER_17: So I guess the thing is, we'd be going through and we'd be looking at the existing conditions of your schools and stuff, understanding what walls and what roofs and stuff like that, what are the conditions of them, and then bringing that as a part of another piece to the stakeholder engagement. So once we go through that process, we go, okay, what are some of the outcomes of this group? We compare it to some of the facilities that we've assessed, and then you know, okay, what's reasonable, what's, I mean, closing schools is always a difficulty thing, but taking into consideration some of the information that we go through this process, comparing it to what we're seeing out there, and then making sure that, okay, what we're recommending, is that tangible, is that?

[6765] SPEAKER_40: So we're not looking to have to do this on another level someplace else in terms of facilities. A construction company coming in, in other words, this will take care of getting us that information that we need so we can make decisions. Because I get tired of having people come in and analyzing and then we look at it and then we have somebody else that comes in and says something different. Can you ask a question again, rephrasing about the Area 3 and 4 because I don't think that was... Well I think that we are looking for an expansion, a possible expansion to another school and so I think this is part of what we need to have some answers for. in terms of making decisions about whether, in truth, another school is needed, looking at what our projected enrollment might be. So I mean, those are all pieces that I think that if those are answers, if we're going to get concrete answers or information that we can make decisions on, then I think that perhaps it's money well spent. But if we have to go someplace else for more information, then I'm saying it's too much.

[6832] SPEAKER_50: So I'll make my last comments regarding this. But I think it's clear that the district wants to work with ADIS. And you've proven to be the group that has performed. And through the evaluation process, we want to work with you. But I think we both know and understand that, again, this 515, 796 is not best and final. OK?

[6861] Nancy Thomas: I'm wondering if there's a way that we can do some of this work offline to arrive at a best and final more quickly than waiting until July if we could do it with the superintendent and the ad hoc committee and bring back and maybe even have a special meeting to approve it at whatever the best and final

[6889] SPEAKER_31: I won't be back in the state until July. I leave tomorrow on a plane. We can do it as soon as I get back. And I'm happy with you two meeting with ADIS in the meantime. I'm fine with that.

[6903] SPEAKER_50: So is there a way for us to approve a ceiling on the contract and then, I don't know, I don't know how it's... I think you pull it and you bring it back in July or you approve it.

[6918] SPEAKER_31: Either way.

[6919] Nancy Thomas: I think we should just approve it. Yes.

[6922] SPEAKER_50: Thank you. In good faith that there will be a best and final.

[6928] SPEAKER_28: I think Mr. Doe would be very happy to work with you.

[6931] Nancy Thomas: OK. OK. With that, I would entertain a motion with that best and final verbiage in it. Mr. Nguyen, do you want to? Mr. Nguyen, why don't you?

[6941] SPEAKER_50: I move to approve with in good faith that there will be a best and final negotiation process to get us to a better price point. Second.

[6948] Nancy Thomas: And it was seconded by Mr. Rodriguez. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you very much.

[6965] Ray Rodriguez: Well, I think this was a $500,000 is a very important thing to spend.

[6975] SPEAKER_33: The recommendation coming from both of you was mixed messages, so.

[6984] Nancy Thomas: Well, it was I think about the price only, not the quality of the work. OK, next we go to 10.5, which is the agreement with Rhineland School of Business Consulting for our interim help with the business. Move to approve. Second. OK, Mr. Nguyen votes to approve. I've got to clear this. And Mr. Rodriguez, did you second it? Yes. OK, is there any discussion? No.

[7019] Ray Rodriguez: OK, please vote.

[7025] SPEAKER_31: Well, I may come afterwards. It won't affect the vote. are willing and able to stay with us until we're able to identify the next CBOC. I'm sorry, CBO.

[7041] Nancy Thomas: Speaking of the CBOC, we have moved to approve 10.6 member resignation, Ms. Navarro. Is there a second?

[7053] Nancy Thomas: OK, Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Preciado seconds. Mr. Preciado seconds. Mr. Nguyen made the motion. Please vote. Thank you. Five ayes. Thank you. Next, the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee annual report. Move to approve. Second. Don't we want to have a presentation?

[7083] Ray Rodriguez: Well, you can move to second and then. Oh, OK.

[7085] SPEAKER_33: I thought we would hear the presentation and then. Yeah. OK.

[7089] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. Maybe we have the presentation. My apologies.

[7099] Ray Rodriguez: Short and final.

[7101] Cindy Parks: The Citizens Bond Oversight Committee is happy to be here this evening and present the 2016-2017 annual report. Mr. Cary Newp is going to present the report, our findings and recommendations.

[7121] Ray Rodriguez: Can I just say that I appreciate all the members here and all that have been involved. You guys, appreciate it.

[7130] Cary Knoop: Even before the report. Everybody's here except one member, so six out of seven are here. Thank you. Yeah, I'm still going to do that presentation. I'll be brief with the numbers because basically, as you know, it's for 2016-17. So we always work a year behind, you know, like last year we did a lot of the place structures and so, but now this is, it's basically roofing and HVACs. So let me go through it. Yeah. So here's an overview of the sale of the bonds and the premiums. There is one thing I would like to highlight, and that's item footnote number three on this slide. So there was an error with respect to the interest that was wrongly allocated. So initially, a lot of interest was allocated to measure B. There's still some measure B money in the fund, 21. And that was corrected, but the error was found after the books were closed. So, you know, there's a journal entry for the next year to correct that. And if you have any questions on the slide, just let me know. I'm going to go through it fairly quickly. So these are the expenditures and the fund balance. Of course, right now we have a lot less. I think it's 11.4. approximately that we have left in Measure G, 11.4 million. As I said before, it's HVACs and roofs that we spend. Just a little bit on technology. The usual overhead. structure management is a banner and some other things that it's typical. I put a couple of slides to, we put a couple of slides together showing what we have spent over the years since the inception of the bond and you can see here the chart. By school. Let me know if I'm going too fast.

[7301] SPEAKER_32: I guess it's non-site specific. That's right. 7,242. Was that the high school? I heard junior high and high school. Yeah.

[7327] Cary Knoop: I think we have a bunch of cameras also in the elementary school. Yeah, yeah. And as one of the things that we did, you know, when the CBSE has a tour, we, last time we actually checked whether they worked. So, we put ourselves in the picture and then Larry got us the extract. Because, you know, sometimes the problem with surveillance equipment is when you really need it, people say, oh, it didn't work or we haven't, you know. So, we wanted to check it and indeed it worked fine. That's at the end of the presentation, that picture. Yeah. OK, here's the non-site specific breakdown. And again, I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary. It's a very simple year that we've had. So this is the most important thing that we as a CBOC do, is every year we have to say whether we think the district is in compliance with the language of the bond, and this year, As all the other years, it's a positive, so we are positive that the district is in compliance using the monies for the bond. We do, however, have a couple of findings and suggestions and comments. The first one is probably one that you've seen before, no deferred maintenance plan, and that's hopefully something that's going to be addressed with the future contractor. presumably ADIS to work this out. And then there's something related to Whiteford. So every year when the CBOC makes a report, we have an ad hoc subcommittee that is chartered to make an annual report. And the committee was concerned about some of the expenditures on Whiteford. They basically had a question. You know, we want to investigate that. We want to find out, you know, what's going on with Whiteford. So we did that. So the ad hoc subcommittee looked at Whiteford, made a report, which is on the March agenda package of the CBOC, so you can actually download it if you want. And there were basically two questions we asked. One is, the activities in 16-17 with respect to Whiteford, were these according to the bond language? As you know, the process of moving special ed away from Whiteford started around 2014. And it went all the way until it was basically announced. And my understanding is actually that the board doesn't decide on these things. It's actually the superintendent who decides I want to move to school or not. And the board was notified, I think, in a special ed update that the move was imminent. So the first, that question was basically, yes, the funds were used correctly. You know, some members expressed like, well, you know, if the district knew that we were going to move the students out, is it then a good idea to spend Measure G money on that? And, you know, the final conclusion was yes, because for a full year, the children and the staff benefited from, you know, air conditioning and better roofing. The answer was yes, the money was spent accordingly. However, there was a note that it wasn't addressed. It wasn't addressed in public. It would be interesting if there would have been a public discussion, simply merely a discussion to say, you know, we have now a situation where we want to spend Measure G money on Whiteford, but we also know that we're going to move special ed out of Whiteford and Whiteford effectively becomes empty. And, you know, just pose the question as a discussion. That didn't happen, but again, that didn't have any implications for our financing concerns saying that the money was well spent or not. We think the money was well spent. So the second question was, like, we are now in a situation where Whiteford is empty. And the question is, well, does the CBLC think that if we spend money on this empty building, which is effectively no longer a school, no longer a place where, you know, students get education, would it be applicable for the bond language? And, you know, we concluded, that was our opinion, that that's not the case. So we think that as long as Whiteford is not used as a school, it's not, it's disqualified from using these funds. Later on, of course, if students would go there, it would qualify again. The bond language is fairly explicit, you know. There's no money that can be spent on the district office. And if you see all the listed structures that apply to the bond, all of them are basically schools. So, you know, I think it's pretty logical to say, hey, you know, when we want to do construction or changes and things like that on Whiteford, we cannot use Measure G money. So our recommendation is one and the same as last year to develop a deferred maintenance plan. And, you know, I do want to point out that there's some difference with last year's reports because we had some concerns with respect to the communication from the district. And I think for that year it definitely improved a lot so we got a much more timely updates, and so that's one of the reasons you don't see that right now as a recommendation in the report. So, you know, the following people, CBO thanks the following people, Brian Bishop, Sarah Wilson for all the work on the agenda and the documents and the business services staff, Mr. Robert Sands, John Watkins from Vanner, And then Michael Ash, the auditor, who audits the Fund 21. So that's basically the report. I hope I didn't go too fast or too much on the surface. And if there's any questions that any of the members have, I'd be happy to answer them to my abilities. Thank you.

[7729] Nancy Thomas: I have a comment, if I may.

[7731] SPEAKER_31: I have a comment as well. I just want to thank the committee. I know that it's not the most fun and exciting committee to be on, to be dealing with CBOC and watching over that. And I know that you guys have both spent many hours of your own time really just poring over, making sure that we're maximizing those dollars. I just want to thank you for that. That's all.

[7757] Nancy Thomas: And I too wanted to commend the CBOC for all the hard work and due diligence. You caught many small, mostly small errors in coding, things like that, that would have gone right by if you didn't have your nose to the grindstone looking at the detail. Thank you.

[7778] Ray Rodriguez: Can you introduce the other members that are here?

[7783] Cindy Parks: First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Knoop. He is our technical support, as you could tell. And then Mr. Adam Moczaleski and Ioana Navarro, they were the rest of the ad hoc committee. They spent countless hours preparing the Whiteford document and reviewing the 16-17 bond financial information and preparing the report. I would also like to recognize the rest of our committee, Merrick Yarbrough, Jack Ding, and Olga Bourgeois. At this time, I would also like to add an additional caveat to this recognition in that Mr. Newt and Mr. Jack Dane are founding members of the committee. And their term will end at the end of this month. So they fulfilled their obligation according to law. And so they will be departing. And they've been on the committee since March of 2012. So I think they deserve an applause for their diligence in serving. And thank you for your service. Another, I'd like to also say that our committee has struggled to maintain the legal required number of seven members. Based on the last committee membership extension approved by the board, I will also be departing the committee at the end of this month. So as of July 1st, the committee will be comprised of only four members. We hope the district will make every effort to advertise the vacancies, encouraging parents and community members to apply, bringing the number of members to at least the minimum of seven prior to the September 11th meeting. Thank you. And were there any questions that you had?

[7890] Cary Knoop: Thank you. Thank you. One element, and I want to thank Cindy Parks, who is instrumental in discovering and finding things. And Cindy helped me a lot when I just got on the CBLC. I didn't know anything. I still don't know anything. I'm just guessing as much as I can. But Cindy helped me a lot. And she also helped me a lot to be diligent, to understand what the word diligent actually means. You don't say, oh, it's OK. I don't want to. It's too difficult. I don't want to bother with it. No. You look at it, and you say, if it's not right, it's got to be said. And I appreciate that you Thank you very much.

[7932] SPEAKER_40: Ms. Crocker. If we're looking in terms of advertising for this at our meeting yesterday, they were talking about the fact that there are now two community boards that are at New Park and someplace else where announcements are. And the city has it, so I think contacting the city and letting them know these positions are available. You can't do that. No, I understand that. I understand that. So I'm saying to the district that this is a place where we can list, and it will go to the community, and it's where people go. So I think that utilizing that would be a good direction. I'm not sure who you contact. I assume the city manager's office.

[7976] SPEAKER_31: I'll call out Maggie. Gotcha.

[7981] Nancy Thomas: Thank you very much. Next, we move on to the agreement with Dexter White

[7987] SPEAKER_50: I think we have to vote.

[7988] Nancy Thomas: There's a motion. I'm sorry. The motion was made by Mr. Nguyen, and the second was by Mr. Rodriguez. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you.

[8008] SPEAKER_50: Is there a presentation for this one as well? 10.8?

[8019] SPEAKER_50: I don't know.

[8020] SPEAKER_40: Move to approve. 10.8. What are we approving?

[8024] Nancy Thomas: 10.8. The audiovisual project, the whiteboard?

[8030] SPEAKER_50: The interactive whiteboard.

[8031] Ray Rodriguez: 1.5 million. It takes three times as long as the other.

[8036] Nancy Thomas: There's been a motion and. I second. Second. Ms. Crocker, did you want to?

[8040] SPEAKER_40: Yeah, what is, we're talking about $200 and some thousand for the difference between the whiteboard and the ceiling mount. What is, just really, really, yeah, I know, just.

[8051] SPEAKER_47: So similar to that, who's that? Right there, regular projector. Interactive whiteboard is whiteboard with project on output that allows students to interact with the content on the whiteboard.

[8062] SPEAKER_40: So what is.

[8063] SPEAKER_47: Smartboard, if you're familiar with the concept.

[8065] SPEAKER_40: OK, what is more flexible for the teacher?

[8068] SPEAKER_47: Interactive whiteboard. Does everything that does, and then smart. I didn't expect them to come in as close as they did, which is why we asked for both. I was frankly a little surprised they came in as close as they did.

[8080] SPEAKER_40: What's the life expectancy of the whiteboard?

[8081] SPEAKER_47: So the life expectancy of the technology on the whiteboard is 8 to 10 years. I believe we went with laser as our specification instead of lamps. It's basically lamp-free, which means that owners won't be on the schools to replace projector lamps, which is a big problem for them right now.

[8099] SPEAKER_40: So if we were talking about the ceiling mounted, what is the life expectancy of that?

[8103] SPEAKER_47: They will both spec as laser projectors. Seven, I believe seven to ten years is fair.

[8112] SPEAKER_40: And this is coming from what source?

[8115] SPEAKER_47: This is from the Russian Funch. This is from when the board, the technology package the board was proposing back in March of 2016. Okay, thank you.

[8125] Nancy Thomas: And did we have a motion and a second? Yeah. Okay, Mr. Wynn and Mr. Rodriguez, you're ahead of me. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. While we look at this donation report, would someone mind looking up the last meeting so we can announce?

[8153] SPEAKER_33: I'd like to move to approve.

[8157] SPEAKER_40: I'll second.

[8163] Nancy Thomas: Please vote. Ms.

[8167] SPEAKER_40: Crocker. I thought I had it.

[8172] Nancy Thomas: Five ayes. Thank you. Would you like to read the June 5th?

[8177] SPEAKER_33: I'll read the June 5th. $500 for Snow Elementary for the donor, Newark Rotary Foundation, specified purpose, summer reading program. Donation of $65 for Newark Memorial High School. The donor is Newark Memorial High School families. Specified purpose, classroom materials for ceramics. Donation of $35 to Newark Memorial High School from, again, the Newark Memorial High School families. Classroom Materials for Photography. An amount of $775 for Newark Memorial High School from the families again. Classroom Materials for Sculpture. $1,104 for Newark Memorial High School from the families at the high school. Classroom Materials, specified purpose, Classroom Materials for Science. $500 for Music Elementary. The donors, Bank of America, the Employee Giving Program, Yvonne Flores. and specified purpose, school use as determined by the principal. So thank you so much for your donations.

[8235] Nancy Thomas: OK. Ms. Crocker, as a member of the Newark Rotary, would you read the? I just lost my screen. Well, then I'll read it. Thank you. OK. $2,000 for Newark Memorial High School. That's from the Newark Rotary Foundation for the Iron Man Wrestling Project. $500 for Graymount Elementary. That's from the Newark Rotary Foundation for reducing test anxiety for students. $500 for Music Elementary from the Newark Rotary Foundation, the Ballet Folklorico Dance Program. Then $2,000 gift card for Music Elementary for the College Football Playoff Foundation and Bay Area Host Committee, Mr. John Montoya's classroom. $80 for music elementary from your cause LLC trustee for PG&E school use as determined by the principal for a total of $5,080. Thank you to all of the donors.

[8308] SPEAKER_50: We have to approve.

[8311] SPEAKER_33: Second.

[8312] SPEAKER_50: This saves us money. I move member Presado seconded.

[8321] Nancy Thomas: Please vote.

[8322] SPEAKER_33: I think it was member Rodriguez. Oh, I take it back.

[8328] SPEAKER_50: Member Rodriguez seconded, I'm sorry. Miss Crocker.

[8330] SPEAKER_41: I'm sorry, I'm trying to get my

[8356] Nancy Thomas: Five ayes. It is closing on the 10 o'clock hour. I would entertain a motion to extend the meeting.

[8365] SPEAKER_50: I move to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. By how much? 15 minutes.

[8374] SPEAKER_31: Could I ask if that's... Is that your best and final? That's my best and final.

[8378] Nancy Thomas: Could I ask if that's not inclusive of going back into closed session for a few minutes?

[8385] SPEAKER_50: Yeah, that's not inclusive of that, just for open session.

[8387] Nancy Thomas: Okay, 15 minutes, did you say? 15.

[8389] SPEAKER_40: If we say 10.30, that should take care of it. Sure, 10.30.

[8392] Nancy Thomas: Okay, 10.30, is there a second? That's my best and final. Okay, Mr. Wynn makes the motion. I'll second. Mr. Preciado seconds. Please vote. Five ayes, thank you. I have a correction. Yes.

[8416] SPEAKER_31: I have a correction and I know we're close to leaving this section so I want to do it before we leave this section. Staff has informed me there is a typo in item 10.3 and I'd like them to make that for the record. Kim, would you step forward on the typo that was in that segment? That might actually clarify some of the confusion that was swirling about earlier.

[8438] SPEAKER_41: Yes, on page 3 of the 8 pages of the AB1200 which will go to the county regarding the NTEA.

[8449] SPEAKER_31: Hold on, let us skip there. Tell us where it is again.

[8452] SPEAKER_41: There's two documents, an 8 page and a 2 page. It's the third page of the 8 page document, public disclosure of collective bargaining agreement.

[8462] SPEAKER_31: Which one is it? Char the middle? Top or bottom one? Second one. Second one in the middle?

[8467] SPEAKER_33: So number three AB 1200. Upper right.

[8470] SPEAKER_41: And it's letter G, source of funding for proposed agreement. Yeah, you can see that the sentence doesn't read correctly and it is saying that the off-scheduled bonus will be paid out of part of LCAP, which is not correct. As I said before, it'll be paid accordingly to the way the employee's position is currently coded at that time, when that position is coded next year. So if they are coded at F0500, if they have a position that is funded by that, then that piece will be coded that way, but every other NTA employee will only be coded, their bonus will be coded per their position coding.

[8515] Nancy Thomas: So I think we owe a thanks to the community members who brought that forward as a confusing issue. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

[8523] SPEAKER_33: I'm wondering how we, do we have to... Yes, we will amend the sentence.

[8527] SPEAKER_41: It has not been sent to county yet.

[8529] SPEAKER_33: No, but I mean, do we have to, because we moved and approved the language as it stood, so do we have to do a motion to suspend the rules to go to 10.3? I'm trying to figure out the process because at the worst, the last thing we want is that Because we didn't vote for it the correct way, now it's not valid. And I don't want to have to.

[8551] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. I would think we should suspend the rules, go back, and re-vote with the correction.

[8558] SPEAKER_33: I agree. So do we have to move and second to suspend the rules? Yes.

[8565] Nancy Thomas: OK. Yeah, I move that we suspend the rules. Second. Mr. Rodriguez seconds. Please vote by hand. Five ayes. Five ayes. Because it takes less time. Okay, please.

[8581] SPEAKER_31: Who moved and seconded? Just for a short catch-up.

[8585] SPEAKER_33: Member Thomas moved and member Rodriguez seconded.

[8590] SPEAKER_32: To suspend the rules.

[8593] Nancy Thomas: So we can go back and vote.

[8595] Ray Rodriguez: I move that we accept 10.3 based on the correction.

[8600] SPEAKER_41: And the correction would put a period after the word cost and the remaining part of the sentence will be

[8606] Nancy Thomas: strike. And so member Rodriguez moves, who seconds it? I'll second. Ms. Crocker seconds. Please vote. Oh I cleared and closed rather than, could I, sorry, could you do it again?

[8630] SPEAKER_33: Then can we do it like the same? So member Rodriguez moved and then ended up Original one, I second it if that's okay.

[8637] Nancy Thomas: Member Rodriguez moves, Member Preciado seconds. Please vote. Mr. Nguyen? Okay.

[8648] SPEAKER_31: Five ayes, thank you. I apologize, but I wanted to get it corrected tonight. Thank you guys.

[8656] Nancy Thomas: Okay, so now we are back where? 10.11.

[8664] SPEAKER_40: Boy organizations. No, the calendars. Calendar.

[8670] SPEAKER_43: 10.11. Move to approve.

[8671] Nancy Thomas: Right. Member Wim moves to approve. I'll second. Member Crocker seconds. Please vote. I have a request to speak. Oh, please. I didn't see that.

[8680] SPEAKER_33: So I wanted to say this. So in the past I've said that I would support the change and I still do. And I've also said though that we have to make sure that we provide enough notice. I said that at least a year in advance. So for me, as part of the motion, again, I don't know if we can add this on this, but make sure that the community is informed because too many times we don't let the parents know. And then all of a sudden, it's like we approved a calendar that changed people's schedule. As soon as they're on the board. It's on the board. This is the notice.

[8716] SPEAKER_50: It's on the post-it. This doesn't start for another 15 months.

[8719] SPEAKER_33: I know, but exactly. That's why I'm OK with it. But I mean, posting is not enough. Just because you post it as a parent, we need to make an active effort to put it in a newsletter to let people know this is for the next two years because it's a big change.

[8738] Nancy Thomas: Okay. Could we continue voting? Okay. Five ayes.

[8745] SPEAKER_33: Thank you. Employee organizations.

[8753] Ray Rodriguez: There you go. Thank you.

[8758] SPEAKER_49: Thank you for extending the meeting till 1030, because I only have 20 minutes to talk. All right. So my name's Timothy Merritt. I'm the president-elect of NTA. I officially start on July 1st. So you can still refer to Tommy if you have any problems. Until then. You're a lot nicer than Tommy was. Well, I want to tell you about one of the jobs I used to have. I worked for the Navy. I was on a submarine, and I was a top secret materials petty officer. So I'm really good at keeping secrets. But as NTA president, I'm not going to keep any secrets. And I want to just say from the start, what I say isn't to offend. My goal is to build relationships, community, teachers, and the district. I feel like we've kind of drifted apart. There's some 70 song playing in my mind right now, but we need to come together. Which song is it? Dreamweaver. It is Dreamweaver.

[8828] SPEAKER_31: There you go.

[8829] SPEAKER_49: I'm with you. So I just want to... be candid that my position as NTA president is to build relationships and to stand for the students and the teachers and what's best for the community. Normally, we applaud after you ratify a contract. Mr. Rodriguez, now I don't know what the percentages of income that you get from selling insurance, but if you got an extra 10% Half a percent? Not very much. You wouldn't applaud. You talked for at least 20 minutes about spending $500,000, and as it was drilled into us on the negotiations committee, $250,000 is a half a percent. And I know that's ongoing, so we get that. Nobody's really happy with that percent, and we understand our part in maintaining a balanced budget. But we're really not happy with half a percent. Other districts, to the extreme, Richmond, West Costa County, they just approved a budget of 15%. They were the lowest paid in their county. But many of the other districts, their work to order, work to rule. And we did not want to do that. We want to be partners. And so I'm grateful for the opportunity. I appreciate those that have reached out and offered to hear me and talk to me, listen to me. So I'm looking forward to the next year. It's going to be a challenge, but we're going to get it done. So thank you.

[8950] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. Can I say something real quick? I just, it isn't an easy job. Okay, and I appreciate you, you know, moving forward to take that on. Tommy, and I apologize, I'm just kidding. Tommy, I love Tommy and Chris, they were great, and so you have big shoes to follow, you know, but I'm excited that you're on board and you're going to work together with the administration to make sure we continue the tradition that we've always had of working together as a unit here.

[8983] SPEAKER_49: I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

[8992] Nancy Thomas: OK, next we move on to the consent agenda, personnel items. We will vote on these individually. 12.1 is the appointment of the Executive Director of Human Resources. I'll second.

[9007] SPEAKER_33: So member Crocker moved, Mr. Preciado seconded.

[9012] Nancy Thomas: Please vote. Superintendent, I'm going to wait until the end of all of these and you can make some introductions. Mr. Rodriguez moves to approve the appointment of Director of Special Projects. You're making me talk too fast. We have until 1030. Please vote. Five ayes. Next, 12.3, appointment of assistant principal of Newark Junior High School.

[9061] SPEAKER_44: Member Nguyen moves.

[9064] Nancy Thomas: Member Preciado seconds. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. 12.4, the personnel report. Move to approve. Second. Mr. Nguyen moves. Mr. Rodriguez seconds. Please vote. Five ayes. Thank you. And Mr. Sanchez, do you want to do the honors?

[9101] SPEAKER_31: Yes, I would like to introduce, first of all, just thank the board and know that I'm really happy to show that we're promoting three people within our organization and I think that builds on the foundation that is a very high value to this board. I want to start by introducing Ms. Jessica Saavedra. Jessica, you step to the podium. Tell us your entire history in education. Just kidding. Just anything you want to say to the board in your new role as you move forward now that you're officially in the role as Executive Director of Human Resources.

[9134] SPEAKER_24: Yes, thank you so much. And good evening. I know it's been a long day for all of you guys and for us as well. But I'm really, really excited. And again, I want to just thank you again for the trust. And I promise to do a good job and work very closely with our union partners and look forward into creating a climate where we can all get along and look for what's best for our students. So thank you again. Thank you. Congratulations.

[9164] SPEAKER_31: Ms. Robyn Sert, Director of Special Projects.

[9171] SPEAKER_30: So I just wanted to thank the school board and Superintendent Sanchez and Assistant Superintendent Salinas for offering me this opportunity and having confidence in me. I'm going to try to do this next part without crying. It is bittersweet for me because I've had the wonderful privilege to be the principal of Snell Elementary School for the past eight years and I have to say they are the most amazing and hard-working staff. They are truly talented and we have a dedicated community and brilliant students and I will always have a love and passion and continue to have them true hold them true to my heart and I'll always be a Blizzard Bear but I'm very excited about my new role and I thank you again for this opportunity.

[9225] Ray Rodriguez: going to have dual roles, right? You're still going to be the principal of Snow. Traffic duty, and then.

[9230] SPEAKER_31: I was waiting till tomorrow.

[9233] Ray Rodriguez: No, I, my kids, you know. But you're perfect for this position. And I know that everybody's going to love you, and you're going to bring a lot of energy to that position. And hopefully, you'll have something to say with Superintendent Sanchez on the new principal at Snow. because they love you there. And Jessica, you could have went somewhere else and got more money, and I'm glad you stayed. Thank you. Thank you.

[9262] Nancy Thomas: Thank you both.

[9264] SPEAKER_31: And Mike Gordon is attending to some important family business, so he would have liked to have been here.

[9273] Ray Rodriguez: Can you share a little bit about Mr. Gordon?

[9277] SPEAKER_31: Mr. Gordon is being moved to assistant principal in Newark Junior High. He has a very strong background and actually was one of the people to help get MCA Academy off the ground. And we believe he brings some of that aspect to try to bear and develop some STEAM programming at the junior high. And I think he'll be a nice addition to that team. I've talked with Principal Neal. He's also looking forward to just a new team member that brings that kind of experience that's from the district. So we wish him the best as well.

[9312] Ray Rodriguez: Thank you. Next. cramping up real bad, if you don't mind.

[9317] Nancy Thomas: Can I give you a document?

[9321] SPEAKER_50: You need to stay. We're making all those extra comments.

[9325] SPEAKER_40: You need to stay so they don't know. We're staying here because you're tossing them.

[9331] Cary Knoop: Lock the door, Tom.

[9336] SPEAKER_50: That's not cool. That's off the record. You're cool, Dave. Messing with our buddy.

[9341] Nancy Thomas: Next, we move on to the consent agenda. I don't believe anyone wanted to speak to any of these issues.

[9346] SPEAKER_50: Move to approve.

[9348] Nancy Thomas: I'll second. Each item or? Every item. The whole thing. The whole thing. Mr. Nguyen moves to approve. 13.1 to 13.13. 13.1 to 13.13. 13, you're correct. Mr. Nguyen moves. I'll second. Mr. Preciado seconds. Please vote. Four ayes. Mr. Rodriguez is absent. Okay, next, the expulsion, the stipulated expulsion. Could I have a motion?

[9386] SPEAKER_48: Move to approve.

[9387] Nancy Thomas: Mr. Nguyen moves to approve. I'll second. Ms. Crocker seconds. Please vote. Four ayes. Mr. Rodriguez is absent. Next, we move to The Board of Education Committee reports announcements, requests, debrief, and discussion. Mr. Nguyen.

[9412] SPEAKER_50: Just one quick request related to an item we discussed earlier. Can we get, in regards to the language, the A to G. Yes. Either sent to me by email or tab or by email or Friday update.

[9423] Bowen Zhang: Okay.

[9424] SPEAKER_50: Thank you.

[9425] SPEAKER_40: Ms. Crocker. I wanted to say that we had a great meeting with the city in terms of liaison committee meeting. It was the kind of thing that we're looking forward to do. A lot of discussion about what's happening in terms of the city in terms of the three major projects they have. And that we're looking at, and I'm not sure what we're going to do in terms of the MOU for the use of McGregor Fields, but I think that should be coming up soon. So that the next time we meet, which will be in October.

[9456] SPEAKER_31: July 31st is when I'm planning to bring it back to the board for a conversation.

[9459] SPEAKER_40: Right, right. But the lay-assigned committee meeting is in October. October 4th, I believe. Something like that. Yeah, I think it's before the meeting we have. That's right. The first meeting. So it was an excellent meeting, and we missed you, but it was good. Very exciting. Yeah.

[9477] SPEAKER_33: Other than that, nothing. Yeah, so I thought I mentioned this earlier in terms of if we could bring back or like kind of for the LCAP kind of our measurable outcomes. And the things that I'm specifically interested in, I don't know if the board would be thinking about how looking at STEAM activities, the extra curricular activities, and then, I'm trying to make sure I recall this right, the A through G kind of discussion that we've had. But it's really the LCAP sometime in December, if we could bring back where we're at from what we've done.

[9515] Nancy Thomas: OK. And I would kind of echo that, that we in our monthly update for the budget rather than having it in the consent agenda as a finance report. I'd like to see a conversation about how we are proceeding with spending the money that is in the LCAP and other agenda issues, you know, related to finance. Also, I'd like to say that it was great fun going to all the promotions and graduations. staff does a great job of setting those up, and they're very inspiring and entertaining in some cases. So I really had a good time, and I hope everyone has a great summer. I won't be here on the 31st, but I will probably phone in from Alaska. Wow. From the fishing boat.

[9572] SPEAKER_31: It's probably not an address.

[9574] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, I'd like to phone in at least a closed session from Alaska.

[9578] SPEAKER_50: Somewhere in Puget Sound, right?

[9580] Nancy Thomas: Yeah, so looking forward to all of us having a nice break, a nice rest, especially you, Superintendent Sanchez, and with enjoying your family over an extended period. That would be nice.

[9591] SPEAKER_33: I forgot to mention, I will be out of town that week, so I will not be able to, it'll be for two weeks.

[9599] Nancy Thomas: On the 31st? Okay, so the rest of you have to go or we can't have the meeting because that'll be, you need a majority of the board at the meeting.

[9613] SPEAKER_40: I think they have to have three present. Is there an alternative?

[9618] SPEAKER_50: Yeah, I do recall that when we discussed the calendar of the 31st or the meeting in July, that it was sort of like a floating one that if we needed it, we'd have it. If we didn't need it, we wouldn't have it. Or it could be rescheduled because of hiring, et cetera.

[9633] SPEAKER_31: We'll be approving a lot of contracts and new hires.

[9635] SPEAKER_50: Yeah.

[9636] SPEAKER_31: But you could ratify them. I think we've done that, too. Or you come back and ratify after.

[9641] SPEAKER_50: Or maybe we just push it for another week or something, have it in early August.

[9644] Nancy Thomas: Well, that was my recommendation from the start, but that's the national night out.

[9649] SPEAKER_31: Yeah.

[9650] SPEAKER_40: That's why we moved.

[9651] SPEAKER_31: That's why I got moved to that date.

[9652] SPEAKER_40: Well, I think is that something that would get in the way of it? I don't know.

[9656] Nancy Thomas: I mean, if we have no other choice, I know, but if we have no other choice.

[9660] SPEAKER_50: Three of us will be here. I'll be here on the 31st.

[9662] SPEAKER_33: I'm gone for two weeks.

[9664] SPEAKER_50: Yeah, I think member, well, Barrington.

[9667] SPEAKER_40: Yeah, I don't know. I'm going out of town at that time, and I should be back.

[9673] Nancy Thomas: OK. OK. Superintendent's comments.

[9679] SPEAKER_31: Just congratulate everyone on completing a school year. I know our teachers and staff have worked very hard this year, and I want to thank them and hope they are able to have some time with their families. I also will be emailing you a video clip that I found today that really illustrates some of the struggles some of our immigrant families are going through on the border right now and separating families and just it's a well-done kind of mini documentary but it's only about 10 minutes so it's not really too in-depth but it kind of gives you a flavor of how it's impacting families and that's the focus is really is what it shows how families and children are going through these struggles right now and I think it's, you know, I think about the challenges we deal with in our district and I watched that today and it really put in perspective how fortunate we are.

[9728] SPEAKER_33: There's a resolution in support.

[9730] SPEAKER_31: Yes.

[9731] SPEAKER_33: I won't be here but if you want to wait for the next one then... I will wait.

[9734] SPEAKER_31: I will wait because it's important. But just know that that's coming and I really kind of reground you. Yeah. So that's all. Thank you.

[9744] Nancy Thomas: Okay. Well We're going to adjourn to closed session and I will let Charles let you know when we come back up.

No minutes available.