Regular Meeting

No content available.

[97] Richelle Piechowski: Recording.

[325] Bowen Zhang: Are we live? Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the November 18th regular meeting of the New World Board of Education. Meeting is called to order at 6 p.m. Ms. Gutierrez, roll call, please.

[340] SPEAKER_42: Member Marquez? Present. Member Guendel? I'm here. Member Hill? Here. President Hsiang? Here. And Vice President Nguyen is absent. Okay.

[351] Bowen Zhang: Moving on through the agenda. May I get a motion to approve the agenda as it is?

[362] SPEAKER_40: President Sir, I move to approve the agenda for this evening.

[366] Bowen Zhang: Motion made by Member Marquez. Any second? I'll second it. Member Marquez, how do you vote?

[380] Richelle Piechowski: Yes.

[382] Bowen Zhang: Member Grundahl? Yes. Member Hill? Yes. My vote is yes as well. Motion carries with four ayes. Member Nguyen is absent. Do we have the Board of Voting turning on? Okay. Moving on to Closed Session. Any public comment on Closed Session items? Okay, we'll be moving to Closed Session. In Closed Session, we'll be discussing 3.2, Public Employee Discipline Dismissal Release 3.3. Conference with Labor Negotiators, Employee Organization, NTA, and CSCA. 3.4, Conference with Labor Negotiator, Employee Group, NEWMA, Unrepresented Supervisors, and Contracted Management. 3.5, Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. 3.6, Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation. 3.7, Student Expulsion Case. And we'll be back to open session at around 7. We'll see you in a bit.

[3338] SPEAKER_34: You can hear the wind, you can hear the wind.

[3724] Kat Jones: Thank you.

[3812] SPEAKER_35: Thank you.

[3928] Bowen Zhang: Okay, we're back to open session. First Pledge of Allegiance. Everybody please stand up. Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Moving on to the report of closed session actions. In closed session for item 3.5, conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation. The board voted 4-0 to accept a confidential settlement proposal by the parents of a special education child to resolve a claim against the district instead of proceeding to litigation. The parties reached a compromise on specified reimbursement to be provided to the child in exchange for releases and waiver of claims against the district. The members voted as follows. Member Grundell, Member Hill, Member Marquez, and myself voted yes. Member Nguyen is absent. Again, in item 3.5, conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation. The board voted 4-0 to accept a confidential settlement proposal by the parents of a special education child. to resolve a claim against the district. Instead of proceeding to litigation, the parties reached a compromise on specified reimbursements we provided to the child in exchange for releases and waiver of claims against the district. The members voted as follows. Member Grindell, Member Hill, Member Marcus, and myself voted yes. Member Nguyen was absent. Moving on to employee organizations, Ms. Gutierrez,

[4037] SPEAKER_42: Yes, we only have NTA for this meeting. Sorry, I apologize. We only have NEWMA for this meeting.

[4054] SPEAKER_21: Good evening, President Jung, Board of Trustees, and Executive Cabinet members. On behalf of our NEWMA board, I want to once again thank you for our NEWMA team, our NTA team, and our CSCA team members for their continued effort and dedication to keeping our school safe, healthy, and positively productive. As we are concluding our conference week, we are looking forward to continuing to see growth of our students that our students have made as a result of our collaborative efforts. As you have noted, NEWMA continuously reports at each board meeting, and we highlight the diverse cultures, months, and celebrations that are represented during each month. Yet, we have not seen an equitable representation of all nations and cultures celebrated in the educational institutions of today. We want to share with you today some parts of a proclamation by President Biden. The United States of America, excuse me, and I quote, the United States of America was founded on an idea that all of us are created equal and deserve equal treatment, equal dignity, and equal opportunity throughout our lives. Throughout our history, though we have always strived to live up to the idea and have never walked away from it, the fact remains that we have fallen short many times. Far too often in our founding era and in the centuries since, the promise of our nation has been denied to Native Americans who have lived on this land since time started. Despite a painful history marked by unjust federal policies and assimilation and termination, American Indians and Alaskan Native peoples have persevered. During National Native American Heritage Month, we celebrate the countless contributions of Native peoples past and present, honor the influence they have had on the advancement of our nation, and recommit ourselves to upholding trust and treaty responsibilities, strengthening tribal sovereignty, and advancing tribal self-determination. Our nation cannot live up to a promise of our founding as long as inequities affect Native Americans persist. During National Native American Heritage Month, we also honor our Native American veterans and service members who have courageously served and continue to serve in our armed forces, including the brave Native American Code Talkers in World War I and World War II. For over 200 years, Native Americans have defended our country during every major conflict and continue to serve at a higher rate than any other ethnic group in the nation. Because of their selflessness, every generation of Americans received the precious gift of liberty, and we owe each of them and their families a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice and dedication. Native Americans' roots are deeply embedded in this land, a homeland love nurtured and strengthened and fought for honor and conviction. This month and every month, as honor the precious, strong, and enduring cultures and contributions of all Native Americans, and we commit ourselves to fulfilling the promise of our nation together. President Biden continues to say that he does hereby declaim proclaim, excuse me, November 2021 as National Native American Heritage Month. And he urges all Americans as well as their elected representatives at the federal, state, and local levels to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities, and to celebrate November 26, 2021 as Native American Heritage Day, end quote. Additionally, as you celebrate Thanksgiving this year, we would like you to recognize the lands on which Newark has been established, was and continues to be of great importance and significance for the Ohlone tribal people. This region was the grounds of spiritual roundhouses, celebration, healings, rituals, dances, feasts, and religious ceremonies. Newark is where many of the tribe's ancestral heritage ceremony and village sites are located and where many have been destroyed. It is important that we not only recognize the history of the land of the Ohlone people on which we gather to participate, learn, and educate our future, but also recognize all First Nations of this region. We want to remind Newark that Coyote Hills was named Coyote Hills to honor the indigenous people whose land we occupy, yet we have failed to consult with any Ohlone tribe on their feedback and school mascot representation. We remind everyone that we are guests on this land. We hope you celebrate, honor, and stand in solidarity with all indigenous people with their struggles to reserve their colonial rights affecting all people of color in California, the United States and the Americas. As we gather next week, we should reflect on the sacred lands of the Ohlone people.

[4409] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. That's the only speaker for, okay. Moving on to School Spotlight BGI, Superintendent Triplett.

[4419] Mark Triplett: Thank you, President Jun. Good evening, board members, public, and staff. And thank you for that statement, Principal. So we're really excited to have BGI as the spotlight this evening. And we have Principal Wong here, who is going to talk a little bit about the amazing things at BGI.

[4445] SPEAKER_39: Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, President Jun, board members, Superintendent Dr. Triplett, cabinet, and the Newark Unified Community. No problem. I just keep saying thank you, thank you, thank you. As we get our presentation uploaded.

[4471] Mark Triplett: And as Ms. Gutierrez is doing that, I also want to recognize a fantastic superstar teacher, Ms. Lindsay Affleck, who's here also from BGI. And just really wanted to acknowledge, I've had the honor of being in her class multiple times. And just what you do with the students is just inspiring and wonderful. So thank you for all you're doing.

[4526] SPEAKER_39: OK, thank you. So again, thank you for having me here tonight. I'm so excited to be here, and I'm honored to be the principal of BGI. Thank you, Ms. Ingham-Watters. I appreciate the hard work you've done here, and I hope to continue the success of BGI. So to start, our mission for our school is to provide rigor and independence through STEAM, problem solving, and character development. As we return to campus, we kept this in our forefront of our minds. And as we welcome our kids back, we are there to ensure that we continue the progress that we've made and sustained through the pandemic and also as we return to campus. Looking at our demographics, this year our students are coming from a diverse background. Our school has a campus of 427 students. The top demographics of BGI are 31% Hispanic or Latino. The second largest group are our Asian population at 28%. And then we also have our 14% of white Caucasian identified students. Within this range of students, we have over 17 languages that come to our campus. Our students come with a diverse background and 71 of those students are identified as English language learners. Those are our students that will be eligible to take the LPAC starting in February. So as we move through our instructional practices, we use that as the template for our day and how we address our instructional pieces. Part of that is addressing the academic progress that students are ready to move forward through as they go through the school year. We also incorporate project-based learning since we are a PBL school. And we recognize that there is a need for social-emotional learning and mental health support with wellness. In this year, we continue to use some online platforms. One of the platforms that drives our instruction is our iReady, and we are through our first set of diagnostics. And so looking at our scores, we noticed that there is a need for our students to have a deeper dive in instruction, but also have more of a focused on what they're learning. And so our teachers have already started the process of identifying students and choosing kids to move into intervention and finding ways to reach our kids. The other piece to this is that we would like our kids to engage in that part. So there is an example there of a data chat that our teachers are using to engage students in talking about their scores. So it's not just a teacher holding responsibility, but it's a student's responsibility as well. We want our kids to know where they are and also have a hand in how they are successful at our school. Since we are a PBL school, it's very exciting to see our kids in action. We have a maker space that is very active. Our students go in there and they create, they make, they solve problems. And we also engage in outside activities like river words contest. You'll notice that on our wall behind us, we have some samples that will be submitted to the national contest. And kids have been finding ways to express themselves through art, through makerspace activities, and just engaging in these really exciting activities. The social-emotional learning is crucial this year. We are leaning on our Character Strong program that helps us use these tools in the classroom to teach about character, perseverance, gratitude, and we use these practices to incorporate in the needs of our kids. Part of our supports are our COS team, our EBAC team, and also our PBS strategies. So you'll see there that we have some classroom spaces that reflect this. And we also do some activities, which I have happily adopted the Connect Four Challenge with our kids. And also, just with the school year coming back to campus, we still like to incorporate our parents in our community, and so we're continuing with our school site council. PTC has been a huge support for us, as well as our ELAC, and engaging with Coffee with a Principal online, and holding parent information nights about some of the progresses that we're making. And with that, I'd just like to thank you again for this evening. And I'd like to extend the invitation for our STEAM Week for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics Focus. At BGR, teachers are getting ready for STEAM Week in December. So you all are welcome to come to our campus, walk through our classrooms, and see our kids in action. Thank you very much.

[4817] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Any board members? Member Hill?

[4830] Aiden Hill: Thank you, Principal Wong. Great presentation. Regarding the IREDI diagnostic, just looking at it quickly, it seemed like there was sort of fluctuation across the grade levels. And it didn't seem like in necessarily one way or the other, right? It sort of seemed a little bit random. And I'm just curious if you guys have done any additional research or, you know, have any insights into why we're seeing that sort of, you know, change in, in performance.

[4862] SPEAKER_39: Yeah, that's a very good question. Our iReady data is coming from two sets of diagnostics, one in the beginning of the school year and then one recently in the last month. And so what we're seeing is that students that start school year are coming with some deficits when it comes to applying them in the classroom and being able to engage. But also now that they're back in the classroom, that engagement has turned into a more direct focus. And so we are seeing some growth, we're seeing some areas that kids are starting to pinpoint. and our teachers are starting to identify.

[4895] Aiden Hill: Thank you.

[4897] Bowen Zhang: Student board member.

[4899] SPEAKER_37: I would just like to say this is truly amazing work and I love to see students engaging in STEAM work space and it's really beautiful, so thank you.

[4908] SPEAKER_39: Thank you.

[4911] Bowen Zhang: Again, welcome to the district and thank you for the presentation and have a great rest of the night.

[4917] SPEAKER_39: Thank you very much. Thank you.

[4925] Bowen Zhang: Yeah, go ahead.

[4927] SPEAKER_39: So our artwork is coming from our grades three through six, and you'll notice some art that is hand-drawn from our students. We also have some leaf art that is displayed, engaging the nature and the environment of our school. And Ms. Affleck also has her students reading a book in which they also draw a character and represent their their statement for that character by drawing in a black and white fashion. And we also have some really impressive writing pieces up there. So if you get a chance, I encourage you to go up and read some of that writing. That writing is some final products of several edits of kids, and they've spent a lot of time getting it to this stage. So that's a really great thing to celebrate to see their writing. And lastly, at the very end here, you'll see some of the California focus of the region and doing some hands-on activities that build out the region of California and all the areas.

[4990] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Thank you.

[4999] Mark Triplett: If I may, President Jordan, I just want to say a personal appreciation to Principal Wong. She's jumped in, had very big shoes to step into, and has just done an amazing job taking the helm at BGI. So really appreciate and we're delighted that she's a part of our family.

[5023] Bowen Zhang: Moving on to public comment on non-agenda items, Ms. Gutierrez.

[5036] SPEAKER_42: Yes, the first speaker is Eric Tam. One second while I move him. Mr. Tam, you may begin.

[5049] SPEAKER_06: Good evening, board, Dr. Shukla, and staff. Before I jump in, I just wanted to wish the teachers, staff, and everyone in the boardroom a happy and safe Thanksgiving. Hope everyone can celebrate with their family and have a nice time. Later tonight, in 13.2, we'll be finally looking at the MBPI data. I wanted to share with you my journey on trying to obtain this specific information the past seven months. On April 2nd, I filed my first CPRA with the district to learn about MBPI as part of the request. I requested, and I quote, all and any testing data, test reports and documentation that was reviewed by NUSD representative related to GPS MBPI system. May 18th, Ms. Lucia replied, portions of your request include records not responsive or not available. In NUSD's April 20th town hall, Ms. Delacruz said, and I quote, we also contracted with commissioning and air balancing test agencies. They will be testing ventilation and a balance of inside and outside air measuring CO2 levels and the effectiveness of ionization devices. Those contractors have started those tests and assessments today and those should be complete in about a week or two. End quote. Timestamp 30 minutes and 48 seconds for the 420 town hall video. I then followed up with the CPRA for these specific test results since Ms. Dela Cruz said they were there. Unfortunately, after back and forth with Ms. Lucia, her last response being June 6th, I never heard back if they exist or don't exist. I tried three additional emails to follow up in the past five months, nothing. On September 16th, after the Cypress presentation, I filed another CPRA for the Cypress engineering test results that should include ionization test data. The Cypress contract says measure CO2 level in sample classrooms in order to justify the GPS and PPI installation. October 10th, I followed up with Ms. Lucia and CC the board asking for the testing report. Ms. Lucia still has yet to reply on that thread to confirm receiving my request, just another 60 plus days of silence. Board, three different CPRAs to get MPPI data, yet nothing. Either they exist and then USD is breaking the law trying to hide it from me, or there's no record and Ms. Lucia just didn't bother replying back, but still breaking the law. Why would NUSD care if a community member sees test data or not? Unless there's something to hide. See board, there are two parts to the GPS class action lawsuit. Part one, MBPI creates harmful byproducts, which tonight's results are trying to debunk. Part two, MBPI is ineffective and DPS took advantage of people's during a pandemic, selling them big goods. I've waited months for this data and we finally have it. No more he said, she said, no more just opinions. Board, I look forward to reviewing the ion count data with you to later time. One final note. Board, you might want to remind your employee about the guidance you gave him from the study session. Ignoring CPRA requests equals exposing you to litigation. Thank you.

[5211] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Next speaker.

[5221] SPEAKER_42: Next speaker is Elizabeth Guerrero. You may begin.

[5225] SPEAKER_02: Good evening, Dr. Triplett and Board of Trustees. We, the parents, representative of Newark Parents for Better Schools, are here to continue addressing the ongoing disrespect and lack of communication that continues to happen at Coyote Hills Elementary. On Friday, November 15, the first ELAC meeting was finally held at 9 a.m. and coffee with the principal at 10.30 a.m. To begin with, the ELEC agenda was never published 72 hours before the meeting, as required by state law, and the meetings were made at a time that is not convenient for many parents. That is why only five parents connected. During these meetings, the parents present asked following questions. I will share the questions and answers received by Principal Tomasini. Why isn't FLEX happening like you and Dr. Triplett promised the parents and community? Answer, because the district does not allow me to do so under the COVID policies. What is the vision of the school and use of data to carry out academic goals? How are services being given to our children who are advanced and are behind academically? Answer, through the intervention and during class. Why aren't meetings in the afternoon when more parents can connect? Answer, I will try to do it, but for now, it will be one in the morning and one in the after school. Again, we are bringing these questions to you because we want answers since the principal cannot answer them. you board members and Dr. Triplett committed to keeping effective programs from both schools and apparently that is not the case. We want to ask for a copy of the COVID policy that Ms. Tomasini is referring to because we did not find the answers on the website to respond to the questions that we were asking from Ms. Tomasini. The lack of transparency has been a major problem in this district. So we would like to thank Member Hill for shedding light on a very dark subject issued of fraud happening in our district. It's not surprising because the superintendent has made it obvious he does not care about our community. We are asking President Chung and the rest of the board to accept the request made by Member Hill at last month's meeting if you truly believe in transparency. Thank you.

[5366] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Next speaker.

[5387] SPEAKER_42: The next speaker is a Spanish speaker. She will provide her message in Spanish and then our translator will interpret it afterwards. Senora Quiroz, ya puede empezar.

[5408] SPEAKER_34: Buenas noches, Dr. Trippett y miembros de la mesa directiva. Nosotros representantes de los padres de Newark para mejores escuelas, estamos aquí para seguir hablando de la falta de respeto que los padres de Coyote Hills Elementary aún siguen recibiendo. El viernes 15 de noviembre, por fin se llevó a cabo la primera junta y las nueve a.m. y junta de café con la directora a las 10.30 a.m. Para comenzar la agenda de ILA jamás fue publicada 72 horas antes de la junta como lo requiere la ley estatales y las juntas se hicieron a un horario que no es conveniente para muchos padres. Solo cinco padres se conectaron durante estas juntas. Los padres representantes presentes hicieron las siguientes preguntas. Les voy a decir las respuestas que recibimos por la directora Tomasini. Primer pregunta. ¿Por qué FLEX no está sucediendo como nos lo prometió el Dr. Triplett y usted? Respuesta de Tomasini. ¿Por qué el distrito no les permite bajo la policía de COVID? ¿Cuál es la visión de la escuela para utilizar la data para alcanzar las metas académicas? ¿Cómo se están dando los servicios a nuestros hijos que están avanzados en bajas calificaciones? Respuesta de la directora. A través de intervención y durante la clase. ¿Por qué las juntas no son por la tarde cuando más padres se pueden conectar? Respuesta de la directora. Trataré de hacerlo, pero ahora será una por la mañana y otra después de escuela. Una vez más, estamos trayendo estas preguntas a ustedes porque queremos respuestas, ya que la directora no las puedo contestar. Ustedes hicieron promesas con el Dr. Trippett. Lo que estaba sucediendo en ambas escuelas iba a continuar. Queremos pedir que nos envíe la copia de la póliza del COVID que la directora Tomasini se está refiriendo, porque no la encontramos en la página de web que nos y que nos contesten las preguntas que se hicieron con la señora Tomasini. La falta de transparencia ha sido un problema importante en este distrito, por lo que me gustaría agradecerle al miembro de la mesa directiva, al señor Hughes, por arrojar luz sobre un tema muy oscuro de fraude que ocurre en nuestro distrito. No es sorprendente, porque el superintendente ha dejado obvio que no se preocupa por la comunidad. Les decimos, les pedimos el presidente Shen y al resto de la mesa directiva, Mr. Hernandez, you may begin.

[5589] SPEAKER_17: Thank you so much. So good evening board members. As representatives of parents for a better school, we have to mention the lack of respect that we received On November 15th was the first meeting for ELAC and it was done at 9 a.m. And then there was a coffee with the principal at 10.30. So there was never any 72 hours beforehand posted so that we might be aware of the meeting and nobody was answering the questions. And there was a total of five parents in that meeting. The parents that were there present that day had a few questions to ask. Number one, why isn't flex no longer happening? And the answer we received was because the district cannot do it due to COVID policies. There was another question as far as like, why aren't our kids reaching their goals and with having low grades? Answer was that, they would be helped through interventions plus inside the classroom. And so why is it that we don't have better times to plan these types of meetings? And the answer we got was there will be one in the morning and one after school. So these are all of the questions that we have. We want answers. And you guys have made a promise. And so we actually want to see a copy of that particular thing that says that due to COVID, we're unable to have these interventions or services. Because we can't find it anywhere on the website. So the lack of transparency here in this district is something that has been ongoing. And so thank you to Mr. Hills for shining light on this whole matter. We understand that the superintendent doesn't really worry about the community. And so if he really wants to do something, he will go ahead and do so.

[5731] Cindy Parks: Thank you.

[5733] SPEAKER_42: That's it for public comment.

[5739] Bowen Zhang: Moving on to superintendent report. Superintendent Triplett. Thank you, President Chun.

[5746] Mark Triplett: Ms. Gutierrez, can you put it up for me, please? All right, so this is the superintendent report for November 18th. We're going to talk about three topics. You can go to the next slide, please, Ms. Gutierrez. Enrollment update. I'll also speak a little bit about the vaccination clinics and vaccination updates. And then lastly, communicate about the CSBA annual education conference that's coming up. So first, enrollment. Just like we do every time, I wanted to share out the most recent enrollment numbers. And so you can see here, this is as of the 16th of November, two days ago, and our numbers are continuing to stay at approximately 300, 330 students below the projections. So we were momentarily excited this week when we had a positive bump of one student. But besides that, we're all joking aside, we are concerned and continue to be concerned about the below projection numbers that we have here. And so we'll continue to monitor that. Shifting to vaccinations and COVID, I do want to share our weekly report regarding the COVID cases. Last week, we actually had an increase in our cases. We had nine student cases and two staff cases. So as you could see, and I know you've been hearing me say recently, we've had very few staff cases. The last four weeks prior, we had zero cases for staff, but we did have two last week. And then we have been averaging around five cases for students. And last week we did have nine. So it's something that we're aware of. And I think that as the whole state sees starting to see an increase in COVID cases based on the change in weather and people being indoors, something that we're also really thinking about. I do want to reiterate the fact that I believe we are our staff cases have been so low is because we have a very high vaccination rate of our staff. However, as I've shared with you, our vaccination rate for our students is actually very low. And so we want to continue to encourage families to get their children vaccinated. And as you know, now the age five through 12, there is it's available for vaccination. So I'm going to talk a little bit about that in a moment. So this is the chart I've showed similar charts in the past of all of the different cities in Alameda County. And this is the fully vaccinated percentage for young people ages 12 to 17. And as you can see, Newark remains at the almost at the bottom 56.9% of the students are young people in that age group. That's not just in NUSD, but in all of Newark ages 12 through 17. And then this is new data. So since the vaccine was made available to ages 5 through 11, this is the data thus far. These are children of that age group who have had at least one dose. And Newark is faring a little bit better there. You see we're just below San Leandro. And I don't have the exact number there. This is how this chart was presented by the county. But you can see we're probably approximately 10% of our 5 to 11-year-olds have already gotten vaccinated. So we wanted to share with you, we've been doing a lot of work with our health partners and the county. and have created many different opportunities for students and adults, for that matter, to become vaccinated. So we are partnering with the Bay Area Community Health, and you can see here that there is many different vaccination clinics coming up at different school sites and other areas in our city. So Music Elementary is having a vaccination clinic on the 22nd, and Schilling on the 24th, McGregor on the 29th, And then, likewise, for the second dose, there is a December 13th clinic at MUSIC again, Family Bible Fellowship on December 15th, and then McGregor again on December 27th and 29th. And then we also have a partnership with Alameda County. Because of our low numbers, Alameda County has taken a particular interest in supporting Newark. And so they're really prioritizing Newark and the city of Newark for opportunities for vaccinations. So we are working with them. There will be a weekly vaccination clinic that will happen every Sunday at Coyote Hills Elementary. We're still working to finalize the start date, but we anticipate early December that we'll begin this. So families can come any week to Coyote Hills, and we're partnering with county health. So these are two different vaccination opportunities that we're making available. And then lastly, just wanted to share out about the upcoming California School Board Association Annual Education Conference. Very exciting. This is a really fantastic opportunity for board members and leadership to convene together, learn about best practices and effective governance. There's many different things, trainings and workshops available during these days. And there is both a virtual option and an in-person option. So this is really for the public, because I know the board is already aware of this. But board president's workshop will be held during this time, an orientation for new trustees, which is really, really valuable. There's training for executive assistants and a program for that. There's student board member programs and trainings and engagements. And then for the three days of workshops in San Diego, topics such as community engagement and advocacy, funding and finance, wellness and mental health, and equity and opportunity. So this is really the foremost organization to support boards in our state. And they do amazing work. As we all know, they've contracted with us. to do trainings here in Newark as well. And so we're really looking at this as a great opportunity to continue to grow as a board and really connect and learn how to be the most effective governance body we can be. And that is all for tonight.

[6193] Bowen Zhang: Thank you, Superintendent. Any clarifying questions from the board? Member Grundahl?

[6203] Terrence Grindall: When it comes to the enrollment issue, my understanding is that this is a statewide or even a national issue. Can you shed any light on what is behind it? Are these parents that have kind of fallen in love with homeschooling and are not putting kids back in school? I won't conjecture anymore, but has there been any study or understanding of what's causing this kind of national reduction in enrollment?

[6233] SPEAKER_35: OK, thanks.

[6235] Mark Triplett: Yeah, well, definitely in California. And we will hear from during the presentation on the feasibility study some more information from our demographer. But what we've learned is, number one, birth rates are as low as they've been in a very long time in California. And so even when we have a situation like an increase in housing, such as we have in Newark, the birth rates are low. And so families moving in and buying new houses here aren't necessarily having children at the rate that they did in the past in California. So that's one of the larger reasons. And then, likewise, the cost of living here in the Bay Area, as we all know, has gone up. And so we know that there's families that are moving out of the Bay Area to other areas I was with superintendents from around the country, I think it was about a month ago. And there's some areas of the country that are more affordable, where they're actually seeing an influx of families. And they're struggling to keep up with that amount of families that are coming into their district. But California is not in that situation.

[6305] Terrence Grindall: My other question is, the Just wanted to be clear with the vaccine clinics that are being offered. If they're offered at a particular school, any student from any part of the district can go to that location if that time's convenient, correct?

[6320] Mark Triplett: That's correct, yeah. Of course, underage students have to have permission from their parents, and parents have to be accompanying them and signing off. But yeah, it's available to any student or community member for that matter, I believe. Is that correct, Ms. Gutierrez, that it's open to the public as well?

[6337] SPEAKER_42: Sorry, I was focusing. The vaccination clinics?

[6340] Terrence Grindall: Yes, they are. And to follow up, what are we doing to promote those opportunities?

[6348] Mark Triplett: So, yeah, so actually Ms. Gutierrez might want to speak a little bit more about it because she is the mastermind behind organizing some of these. But I know the county is very eager to support with promotion and different levels of engagement with community holding. holding town halls or whatever it takes to get out the word. Ms. Gutierrez, do you want to add to that?

[6372] SPEAKER_42: Yes, of course. So we're marketing in all our social media platforms as well as our website. It's distributed to all our staff as well. And in partnership with Bay Area Community Health, they're also promoting it in their their websites and in their platforms. And then we have some community groups that we connect with, that we send it to them directly, who also share our flyers with their members.

[6399] Terrence Grindall: Thank you.

[6402] Bowen Zhang: Member Marquez.

[6404] SPEAKER_40: Thank you. The question I had is for the families. Is this going to be single dose or are they going to be providing the double dose vaccination so that families are aware of that ahead of time?

[6413] Mark Triplett: Yeah, my understanding is that Pfizer is the only one that's been given emergency approval for the young children. And so I believe all of these are Pfizer and they're double dose. Um, if I may, yes, please.

[6426] SPEAKER_42: They're going to be providing all three vaccines and boosters for all three vaccines. And the low dose is for the Children five and up 5 to 11. And that's the Pfizer. Thank you.

[6440] Bowen Zhang: And I think- Wait, wait, a clarifying question from Ms. Gutierrez. You're saying all three brands of vaccine are provided? Correct. And not only that, I mean, I guess the Pfizer will have booster? Correct. Okay, I see.

[6456] SPEAKER_42: But- In my understanding, please don't quote me on this, but in my understanding, they also have the boosters for Johnson & Johnson and Moderna.

[6465] Bowen Zhang: Who are eligible? It's the only children in the district or children in Newark?

[6471] Mark Triplett: Any, both children and adults? Any adults. That's right. But like I was saying, the Pfizer is only, or sorry, the ages 5 to 11, Pfizer is the only one that's approved for that age group so far. I would anticipate that the others will be approved, but just not yet. Also, I think it just bears repeating that the doses are different for the young children. So it's actually not the same dose.

[6501] Bowen Zhang: Any other questions from the board? Sina, thank you for the presentation, Superintendent. Moving on to staff report 10.1, update on forefront power solar project at Memorial High and Junior High. Superintendent Triplett.

[6515] Mark Triplett: Thank you. Yeah, I believe that the board asked for an update at the last board meeting, and so I'll have Ms. Delacruz share a little bit.

[6525] Marie dela Cruz: Thank you, Dr. Triplett. Yes, Member Nguyen, who's not here today, did request that we provide an update and it was timely because we had planned on providing another update since we're making really good progress on our solar projects. We have Mr. Brian Taylor here tonight to give you an update on these projects at Newark Memorial High and Newark Junior High School.

[6557] Mark Triplett: And I believe he's virtual, is that right?

[6564] SPEAKER_29: Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Sorry. And there is a deck that I provided. Are you able to see that?

[6573] Marie dela Cruz: Yes.

[6575] SPEAKER_35: Thank you.

[6575] Marie dela Cruz: OK. Hold on a second, Mr. Taylor. No.

[6594] SPEAKER_40: No.

[6602] SPEAKER_29: Maria, I'm just confirming I'm standing by waiting for your cue, right?

[6606] Mark Triplett: That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

[6610] Marie dela Cruz: Newark USD solar update. Forefront power.

[6669] Cindy Parks: We're ready.

[6670] Marie dela Cruz: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Taylor.

[6673] SPEAKER_29: Thank you very much. Good evening, esteemed board. Thank you for the opportunity to present tonight. I'm here to provide an update on the solar and storage projects that Forefront Power is completing construction on. This is a very good news report, in my opinion. And so let me give you some highlights. On the board deck, or on the deck we've provided, if you turn to slide two, And just stop me from talking if you're not on slide two or if you have any complications. I apologize for the cumbersome nature of the presentation here. But in terms of the canopy installation at Newark Memorial High School and Newark Junior High School, the two sites that we're installing solar at currently, the solar canopy in themselves is essentially complete. We have some pictures that we'll show you in the back of this deck. And we are basically right now awaiting PG&E to come out and do the shutdown and tie in where we actually physically interconnect to the grid. And that is scheduled by PG&E to happen at the two sites at the dates that you can see there on December 4th and on November 23rd. Then after we complete that, that would mean that we are mechanically complete. So everything that we needed to do is done. And we're going to be doing some commissioning and some testing, and then really energizing the systems before the end of the calendar year. So pretty much right around the corner. In terms of two other items, the EV charging stations installation is approaching completion. As you can see, the dates listed there that we expect those to be complete, as well as solar workstations. These again, if you recall, are the kind of like picnic tables An umbrella over the top of the umbrella is actually a small solar canopy and students can plug in their laptops and their phones and and be charged kind of off grid. Those are again expected. I believe they are On site and we're waiting for final installation before the end of the year. So in summary, at a quick high level installations are essentially complete and they will be online and operational before the end of the calendar year. We recently received these dates that we've been waiting on from PG&E for that mechanical completion shutdown tie-in. We've got them scheduled and that's that is kind of the long and short of the schedule. If you turn to slide 3 you can see that the savings here that we're showing if you look for at Newark Memorial High School last we came to you we were projecting savings in that middle row there. of $108,000 and 5.3 million over the course of 20 years. We are fortunately gonna beat that by just a hair, but savings is essentially unchanged at Newark Memorial High School and similar story at Newark Junior High School. Whereas last time we projected about $900,000 in savings over 20 years, now we're looking at about 958,000. All the projects are gonna be cashflow positive in year one. In other words, they're gonna be less expensive than what you're currently paying PG&E. And as a reminder, These rates are flat for 20 years. So whereas PG&E rates go up every year, your rates are remaining flat, giving you budget certainty and allowing you to invest those dollars back into the district. So to the fun part, unless there's any questions, obviously, please just interrupt me. If you go on to slide five, you can see some of the site photos at Newark Junior High School. Here we have some of the canopies that are up and installed. These are construction photos, but the canopies are up, totally erected, and then we have one of our engineers there in his electrical rubber suit doing a little electrical work there. Turning to Newark High School, we see photos. I think these are drone photos or maybe from a canopy or crane. Looking down on the arrays, you can see the gym in the background there on the top left. As well as on the right side, you can see some of the work that we're doing to install as part of the storage, the battery energy storage system that we're installing on campus. So these installations are largely complete. We're kind of filling in some of the odds and ends right now and awaiting PG&E to do their work. And then kind of the last bullet that's not on here is there's going to be, we are organizing a ribbon cutting. We were originally planning to do that in the month of December. But given the time frames that PG&E gave us, we're going to do that, or we're planning to have a ribbon cutting in January, the first month of the year. So be on the lookout for that kind of organized event to come your way. And hopefully, it'll be a really nice celebratory event for the district. That's the bulk of the update. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[6973] Bowen Zhang: Bringing back to the board, Member Hill.

[6977] Aiden Hill: Thank you for the presentation. So just a quick question, and maybe I missed it in your presentation. But when exactly does the break even occur? So we've invested money to put this in. At what point do we recover our costs and start to actually generate savings that we can put in our pocket?

[6997] SPEAKER_29: Yes, sir. Please just interrupt me if someone else would like to answer that on staff. But the arrangement that the district used for these solar projects is known as the Power Purchase Under the Power Purchase Agreement, there was actually no capital outlay on the part of the district. Forefront Power has financed these systems on our balance sheet, and you are purchasing the energy produced by the systems at a rate that is below what you're paying PG&E now and flat for 20 years. So to think of this in terms of an IRR, you know, a return on investment, or payback period, it's a different metric. These will be cash flow positive in year one, and there was no capital outlay on the part of the district. You essentially have all of those bond funds or capital outlay that you would have used on solar to apply to other projects.

[7045] Aiden Hill: And thank you. And just to follow up, and this is partly what was the genesis of my question, because in our, the description that we have for this particular agenda item in paragraph two, it just says, what they're talking about, including the option for the district to incorporate costs such as, but not limited to, inspector fees, DSA fees, PG&E upgrades, and ADA compliance requirements currently estimated at $100,000 for both sites. So I'm imagining that those costs are not covered under your agreement, that those are costs that we would incur ourselves, is that correct?

[7081] SPEAKER_29: Yeah, so the genesis of those items is that, you know, at the outset of these projects, when the district and 4FM Power entered into an agreement, we, there was still a fair amount of, all of the diligence really on the project still had to be done, including geotechnical reports, submitting interconnection applications to the utility and seeing if there would be any expense that the utility would then subject you to in order to build the systems, et cetera. And those, that is the mechanism by which we handle those known unknowns. So we have absorbed all of those costs into the PPA, as part of a foreseen and already contracted formulaic adjustment in the PPA agreement. So again, there's still no capital outlay on the part of the district. Forefront Power has absorbed those expenses, including reimbursing the district for your inspector of record fees. We can't pay your inspector of record. You have to pay them. But we reimbursed you for those inspector of record fees. And thus, there still is no capital outlay. And with all those fees now included, you're seeing the final product here, you're still projected to be cash flow positive in year one.

[7157] Bowen Zhang: Great, thank you. Yeah, so when we made a decision in 2019, we even actually weighed the two options, whether we outright own the storage, which we need to spend some money, or we don't have any upfront costs, which is this agreement. I believe we do have some penalty if we decide later on that we want to completely own this, right? I remember that's what we voted for. Any other questions? Member Grindel?

[7184] Terrence Grindall: Yes. Thank you for the great presentation and we're very excited about this opportunity to provide this savings to our district without having to spend any money up front. How can you tell me how many electric vehicle charging stations there are going to be and how many of the picnic tables for for students charging tables are going to be. So that's that's my question.

[7212] SPEAKER_29: Yes I can. I believe there are four EV charging stations at the high school and two at the middle school. I believe there are. two solar workstations at the high school and one at the middle school or junior high school.

[7231] Terrence Grindall: Thank you. And I just want to again say this is a great program and not only in terms of the savings to the district but there's learning opportunities for students as well just in seeing and seeing this green energy being used being generated and used at their school. So I think it's a great fit for our mission. Thank you.

[7255] SPEAKER_29: for me to to comment on that. But I just want to also highlight to you that as part of this, we are we are providing a or a supplemental renewable energy education piece to the district to help, as you say, bring these solar storage projects into the classroom so students can learn about them. Thank you.

[7276] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Seeing none questions. Thank you for the presentation. Have a great rest of the evening.

[7283] Marie dela Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

[7286] Bowen Zhang: Moving on to 10.2, feasibility study for new school in a sanctuary development. Before we begin, we have a public speaker, Mrs. Cindy Parks.

[7305] Cindy Parks: Good evening. I'm glad you used SchoolWorks for this study since they provided you with a demographic study a year ago. Boy, what a difference a year can make enrollment-wise. There's a reason they call them enrollment projections. The projections for last year versus the ones before you this evening show a dramatic decrease, even with a projected TK increase. I assume you all are aware of the significant drop in enrollment through the state, along with the decrease in birth rates. You talked about it earlier. I am confused by presentation slide six, the school facility utilization chart. Kennedy and Lincoln have the same number of classrooms and grade levels, yet there is a student population difference of 44 students. Last night I reviewed the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA, and the Environmental Impact Report, the EIR, as it pertains to the Area 3 potential 600 student elementary school site. I hope in the near future you will have a board study session about these documents and how they relate to the potential school in that area. Member Grindel will be an asset in deciphering the documents since he was the contact person at the city. I will confess some of the areas addressed are beyond my scope of knowledge. There were different items of concern in the two environmental impact documents I reviewed. Hazards to school are noted in the first document I found. Potential impacts related to the hazards to the school are discussed in the draft EIR on page 220. It then mentions mitigation measures and prior to any approval of the potential school site, the district shall coordinate with the DTSC, the Department of Toxic Substance Control and all available data pertaining to the proposed school site shall be provided to them so that an appropriate plan for further site evaluation and or remediation can be developed. This leads me to believe that no remediation has taken place. Needless to say, I went and located the draft EIR and searched for anything pertaining to the school. And there were a number of items mentioning the contamination hazards from the presence of pesticides in shallow soil layers. Page 220 noted that it was a formally agricultural use, including a dairy farm. It listed pesticides from the Department of Toxic Substance Control, which would exceed the appropriate levels for school use. Do you know whether those hazards have been remediated? If so, are the remediation levels acceptable for a school which are stricter than housing development? If remediation still needs to take place, who's responsible to pay for the remediation? There are many concerns listed within the document which I would hope you would read. I want to leave you with this question. School Works projected $42.1 million to build a new school. What is included in that projection? Just the structure? What other expenses could be generated beyond the possible soil mitigation? How about all the interior needs of the various rooms, technology, landscape, that will boost the cost? I realize this is the first time you are seeing the report and that there are many factors to consider. But tomorrow will mark the one-year anniversary of the vote to close two schools due to budget constraints. Can you afford this gift? Thank you.

[7507] Bowen Zhang: Any other public comment? Superintendent Triplett.

[7513] Mark Triplett: Thank you, President Jun. So this is just a quick introduction. This study was requested by the board, and so we undertook it with School Works, who has done considerable work for us in the past, do really excellent work as demographers. And so I believe we have tonight with us, Mr. Kan, is that correct? So I'll turn it over to Ms.dela Cruz to speak briefly about it, and then we can hear from our demographer.

[7543] Marie dela Cruz: Thank you, Dr. Triplett. Mr. Ken Reynolds from School Works has been working on this feasibility study based on the demographics and the enrollment projections that were also included in this agenda item. And tonight he's going to discuss the report and including some of the pros and cons of whether it's feasible to build this new school or not.

[7577] SPEAKER_30: Good evening. Do you have the PowerPoint you're pulling up?

[7583] Marie dela Cruz: Yes. It's up, Mr. Reynolds. You're good.

[7588] SPEAKER_42: I apologize. I believe we do have a public comment that I think I might have missed. But we have, if you don't mind, can we do the public comment? OK. So we have a public comment from Mr. Eric Tam. Sorry, Mr. Reynolds. Eric Tam, you may begin.

[7608] SPEAKER_06: Thank you for the opportunity. There are a lot of projections and assumptions that the team has put together. I believe the fail fast methodology fits very well here. My hope is the board can employ this methodology as assumptions or projections might possibly prove false as time passes. Board, I wanted to highlight some key assumptions in the model that you could just use to watch and know in a very short amount of time that this projected model warrants a new school. First metric, student enrollment numbers. Well, fresh off the press, Dr. Triplett said tonight's enrollment is down to 5,5170. So isn't that a bad sign? The feasibility report uses 5,193 for its projection. So right off the bat, we are already 0.4% off. Second metric, TK enrollment by April of next year. One of the key assumptions is that TK will bring in 251 students in six years and help basically plateau the student enrollment numbers. You will know by the end of enrollment period that assumption is true. If it falls outside of the projection, that is a big red flag. Third metric, new development enrollment projected versus actual. Can we use the Bayshore's Glass Bay Lighthouse community data to help? I'd estimate at least 750 plus of the plan units have been created. On the student residence map, I count 32 markers in these new communities. We can leverage the actual versus projected ratio by the end of this year. Since one of the major assumptions in the model is projecting 432 new students in the 10 to 15 years range in the new park area. Fourth metric, cohort change since kindergarten retention. For K to three, page 11 shows cohort change since kindergarten, where grade three start the large differential. Monitoring this early as part of your funnel will give you quick ideas if enrollment is getting worse or healing. I hope these four metrics can help the board going forward. Finally, I wanted to discuss about return on investment. The initial projection is 42.1 million, not including operational costs. Based on the other California public projects, I'm pretty sure the cost will be around 60 plus million range. Board, have you considered alternate scenarios like transporting kids from new developments to underutilized schools? Google Maps shows Sealing to New Park Mall is 3 miles, CHE to New Park is 2.7 miles. Newark is not a very geographically large location and hope that public transportation could be a cost efficient solution. Please monitor the projections closely. Tonight's enrollments numbers should be your first red flag. I hope the board can pull the ripcord as soon as the model assumptions fail. Thank you.

[7755] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Mr. Brandon.

[7760] SPEAKER_42: Mr. Reynolds, you may begin.

[7762] SPEAKER_30: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to present our study to you this evening. If we start with slide two, we basically take a snapshot of an aerial view of where the new school site is located in the sanctuary development, also known as Area 3. The site is identified as six acres, and it's adjacent to a park site just south of it of three acres. So again, we're starting off with a relatively small site for a school project, considering most of the district sites average closer to 10 acres. We do have a deadline of August of 2025 to begin construction for a school on this site in order to accept the donation. So those are the key reasons why we embarked on this feasibility study because of these constraints. If we go to the next slide. On slide three, we start off by updating all of the district demographics based on the information from this current school year. Again, the district saw a significant drop in enrollment this year, as was seen throughout the region. And again, it's due to a lot of the challenges relating to the pandemic. So we do show that there will be an additional decline next year, but the numbers do eventually stabilize. And again, it would have been a more significant decline if not for the fact that in the state budget this year, they allowed for increased eligibility for the TK program to all four-year-olds. It phases in over the next four years. So we do see a decline of 167 students over the six-year period. And if you, however, look at just the orange color of the graph, we are seeing a net increase in the elementary ages of TK6.

[7894] Marie dela Cruz: Mr. Rouse, can I interrupt you for a second? The PowerPoint doesn't seem to show the numbers. Can I ask the board members to, if you could please just follow along on the attachment because the attachment does have the numbers. Thank you.

[7910] SPEAKER_30: Sorry for that glitch. So we do see an increase in the, again, the elementary grades of 251 over the six year window. And again, that's mostly due to the impact of the increase in TK population to a full grade. So on slide four, we talk about the projections by school. These projections do show that the music elementary campus is closed beginning next year. And then we also account for the sixth grade moving to the junior high school. So we do show an overall decrease at the elementary school totals, mainly due to the fact that we've removed sixth grade, even though we're seeing an increase in the TK population. So our overall elementary population is projected to decline. On slide five, we show the projections for the district by grade level. And so here you can see the impact of the increase in TK over the next four years. This year, there were 78 students. And again, as a reminder, the data we show on our projections are representative of the beginning of October enrollment. And so I know the numbers fluctuate during the school year, but these are representative of the first week of October. And so we have 78 students in TK and our projected growth is eventually once they're all four-year-olds are eligible for TK that we'd have about 350. And of course that's lower than the numbers you see in kindergarten and first grade. We anticipate that the participation rate will be smaller again just due to the fact that the children are younger and maybe not everyone will want to participate. So a bit of a conservative projection on the TK population. The next slide talks about utilization. Again, these initial slides are summarizing our updated demographics report, which is a key factor in trying to understand, is it feasible to build a new school? And so the key takeaway from this slide is the projected utilization. We're at 69.2% across our open schools. It would be an even lower rate if we added in the capacity that we're not using at snow or music. So again, the initial demographics are not showing a significant need. However, the Birch Grove primary is showing it's gonna be at capacity as TK builds out to a full grade. So then on slide seven, Again, we wanted to take a look at what is the neighborhood population looking like. Again, we know that there's only 23 grade TK5 students in the sanctuary development this school year. So that is a very low yield rate. It is common that yield rates can increase over time, especially if the families moving in have just started their families and perhaps have two and three year old children. When we look at the area shown in gray, basically the neighborhood around where the new school site is located, there are currently 189 grade TK-5 students. So again, that's obviously too small to operate a school at this point. But there is a reasonable population and there is additional growth projected. On slide eight, we talk about the new housing development. This map shows in the red crosshatched areas where developments are projected to impact the district over the next six to 10 years. And so within the area of the new school site in area three, we do anticipate the population will reach 432 when those developments are built out. But that's over the next 10 to 15 years. So that's a significant time frame from now, which again makes it challenging to build a school now when it may not be needed for quite a while. And the other item to remember is if we house those neighborhood students at that campus, then that would draw down population from the Birch Grove campuses. Again, there's a lot of different ways of looking at the data depending on how that new school site could potentially be used. The other item I wanted to point out on slide nine, what we're showing here are the school boundaries in the background colors and also the school locations. I used a red star to identify where the new site is located so we can compare that to where the other existing school sites are. And so this one is obviously in a different geographic location of the school district. And so that is one of the advantages of considering construction, is it's geographically remote from most of the other sites. The closest site is Birch Grove Primary, which is about 1.3 miles away. Then on slide 10, we talk about what does it cost to build a school? Again, that's a rather in-depth conversation. And so we just provided a rough estimate based on the average square footage of a campus per student based on a need to house about 450 students at build out of the neighborhood students. Again, a lot of other options could be considered. But basically, we're looking at about $42 million. And that does include the construction costs and site development, furniture, equipment, design work, project management of the project, the various DSA and CDE fees that would have to be paid. If there are any significant environmental issues that would add to the cost. Most of the time, those items would be minimal. But again, in some situations, there are some hurdles to get over. So again, the other calculation we did is, you know, what is a six-acre site capable of housing? And again, based on California Department of Education standards, it would be typically about 400 students. However, with joint use of the adjacent three acre park site, we could make the argument we could house up to 600 students. Now, to do a project like this, an entire new school, it's usually an average of three to three and a half years. Again, if there's any significant environmental delays, that would be additional. The deadline to meet the requirement to begin construction is usually a 12 to 18 month period. But again, any environmental delays could cause an additional delay. But again, from my understanding of the project and its status, I think any challenges would be easily remediated. And so a decision by the board to build the school, I think, would be needed by the summer of 2023 in order to meet the deadline for the site donation. So basically, design of the project would need to begin by the summer of 2023. So on page 11, slide 11, we talk about where can we get funding to build a new school. The most common sources are developer fees. But again, based on a review of the last audit report we had available, there was just under $17 million available. I don't know what that current number is. There's also, based on the projected development, an estimated $11.6 million in additional revenues over the next six years. Another common source of funding is the state building program. However, due to the fact the district has closed schools and does not show a projected increase in overall enrollment, it is not likely the district would qualify for any new construction funding assistance from the state building program. And so the other major source of funding that districts use for new school projects are local GO bonds. And the district does have available bonding capacity And it has done bonds in the past. The last bond was in 2011, which was successful for 63 million. So those are the key items to consider when trying to find funding for a new school project. Let me get to page 12. And we talk about the reasons you could make on the positive side of why we would want to build a new school. And so we've identified them all here. They're the same as what's in the actual written report we did. And again, the written report has more details and more information to back up some of the summaries that we've shown here. But for presentation purposes, again, we just want to get the highlights across. And so it's Not necessarily how many items there are on each of these pages for the pros and cons. It's really about how important are these items as you try to make a decision if it is feasible to build this school project. And so obviously there's value in the site that is available as a donation. And there is obviously development taking place in the area. And there is a projected population there that could create a neighborhood school. And it is in a location that is different from the existing campuses and especially quite far from where the closed campuses are. However, the sort of the one that's both a pro and a con is the fact that a bond would be needed in order to afford a significant size project like this. And however, as doing a bond project, it would also make sense that that bond would include needs for the other school sites in the district. So if you're going to be going through the process, it could be beneficial that there would be multiple projects in that effort. And the other item to consider that we have not factored in into the projections is that a new school could help draw additional students and increase enrollment over time. It is quite common that new schools do attract families. On the next slide, we list several of the challenges or cons to consider. And obviously, the demographics are one of the key components in terms of the challenges. A school is expensive to operate. And if we're continuing to see an overall decline in district enrollment, having the funds to operate an additional school really is a significant challenge to overcome. And obviously, finding the funds to build it. And so you would need the support of the voters to approve a new bond in order to afford a significant project at the scope that has been defined. And then, given the fact that the district has closed two school sites, as was mentioned in the public comments, building a new school seems counterintuitive. And then finally, I think one of the key issues is that if this school were to be built, it would cause a drop in enrollment at the Birch Grove sites, which again could lead to closure of another school. And then The other challenge is that we need to begin sooner than later on constructing the school when the need for it is really farther out in that 10 to 15 year range as compared to an immediate need. And then the other item that I had really tried to point out was that there is lots of opportunities if the district were to raise funds for school projects that the projects could be done at any of the school sites. And so all the sites are in need of significant improvements and you could get the equivalent of a new school at any of your sites if you were to make this type of an investment. And so it's not limited to just this site in terms of considering any major construction projects. And so that's really the highlights of our study. Again, there's quite a bit more details and I urge you to read through the entire report and I'd love to answer any questions you have.

[8838] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. I'll bring it back to the board. Any questions from the board? Today is only discussion, information only. Member Guendel.

[8847] Terrence Grindall: I have a couple of points. Thank you for the in-depth analysis and the study. The enrollment projections particularly are fascinating. I do have a couple of questions about that. Well, I have a couple of clarifying points and then given my background knowledge of this process. But the, so just one clarifying point is that the, The joint use for the park to make it a nine-acre site is explicitly allowed. So it's not a matter of having to ask for it. So you are really looking at a nine-acre school site, not a six-acre school site. So I'm not sure that's really a con. But I do want to focus my comments on the study itself, not so much the pros and cons, which is something the board will be weighing as we analyze this in more detail. The, as indicated, the schools are located north of Central. All of our schools except Birch Grove are located north of Central and we only have the one school to the south. And another part, another issue that you didn't indicate, you didn't address was that almost all of our elementary schools were built in a short period of time. They're all going to be coming They're all coming to the end of their useful life fairly, pretty much at the same time, maybe 10, 15 years out. And so I did have a question for you to follow up. How does the replacement of a school in place happen? It would seem difficult to me to imagine how, when a particular school needs to be basically torn down and replaced, how that's done without disruption. It would seem easier if there's a new school on a new site being constructed. Can you address that?

[8964] SPEAKER_30: Yes. We're aware of several districts throughout the state, and especially the Bay Area, that have gone through the process rebuilding schools. And in most cases, right, they take it down to the bare ground and start over. And it does create a significant interim housing challenge. And so in most cases, right, either the kids are put in portables or other facilities are utilized. And so even though that does create a significant challenge in most cases, I think the district does have some options that could be considered because of the available sites that have been or are being closed. And so whether we had to temporarily utilize one of those sites while an existing site is remodeled or replaced, or if one of those sites would be would be the location for a replacement project. So again, there's options available. It does create challenges in the short term. But those are, again, districts all over the state are having to deal with that issue as schools are reaching that end of useful life period.

[9048] Terrence Grindall: Thank you. Another issue I wanted to address is that you're looking at new development and I think you prudently limited yourself to projects that had actually been approved by the city rather than sort of pipeline projects. And I think that's prudent because you never know what's going to happen. However, as you're well aware, the state of California has a major push on adding new housing. And for the city of Newark, that means they've got to accommodate nearly 2,000 housing units in the next eight years in the district. And most of those units are not part of what's counted in your analysis. So I wanted to basically just point that out and see if you could comment on that.

[9097] SPEAKER_30: Yes, and we're aware of the state's push to create additional housing and even more affordable housing. However, even though that's been a goal for significant number of years now, we haven't seen it really have a actual impact in most cases. So again, that is one of the reasons that in my notes, I identify that, you know, we are just doing a projection. We aren't controlling the future of development. And so that is why there could be surprises that happen in terms of actual any significant increase in development. And again, that's why it's always nice to have a site available in case of a situation like that. It's just that there's always that unknown. And that is one of the more challenging issues that the board needs to grapple with is that should there be a need for a site at this school, at this location, or anywhere else, land is going to be at a premium. And so that is, I think, one of the main positive reasons why the district would consider this is because if that site ends up getting built with houses, which would be likely to happen if you don't build on it, Again, I've worked with districts that have had to consider eminent domain to acquire sites, and the cost is going to be at least triple what it would be just to buy plain land.

[9204] Terrence Grindall: Great. And I just have one more comment to make, and then I'll let others speak. I do think there was one mistake in your evaluation of the land. My understanding is roughly residential land that's properly zoned by the city is actually better valued at $4 million an acre, not $2 million an acre, so that the loss for the community would be $24 million if this school were to be returned to the developer.

[9240] SPEAKER_30: Correct. It could easily be worth at least $4 million. I was using a minimum value just because of the uncertainty of the future value of land and the fact that there is really no land available to purchase, right, which drives prices up. And I didn't want to overestimate it to make it seem like it is a worthwhile to move forward just simply because of the potential value of the site. But yeah, if this is not utilized and we do have to purchase land into the future, it could easily cost the district $4 million or more per acre.

[9287] Terrence Grindall: Thank you. And actually, I did want to make one more point, is that the deadline could be extended by the developer. So we will be having discussions with the developer, I understand Superintendent Triplett, to see if we can get a reasonable extension of that time. So that constraint may not be as intense as it seems. So with that, I'll let others speak.

[9320] SPEAKER_30: Yeah, I had heard that the district was looking into that, and you're right. I will add a note to help clarify that.

[9327] Bowen Zhang: OK. So I got one question on the cost of construction, $42 million. Is this based on the idea that this building, the new school, requires union contracting, or it doesn't require union contracting?

[9347] SPEAKER_30: It is just a basic. the school components, right, where I identified, you know, we'd have a cafeteria, a library, office space, some pull-out rooms, a restroom, some storage, but nothing fancy, right? I didn't factor in, you know, that we're building two-story construction or, you know, if we want a steam lab or a science lab or anything like that, it is just the standard design.

[9379] Mark Triplett: Mr. Reynolds, if I may, I believe the president is asking if this is the cost using union contracting versus non. And I believe we are required, if we're contracting ourselves, that we're required to use union contracting, correct?

[9396] SPEAKER_30: Correct, yeah. And any district projects have to be union and use prevailing wage.

[9407] Bowen Zhang: Any other questions? Member Hill?

[9411] Aiden Hill: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds, for a very thorough report. So a couple or three questions. So in your study, first, you were looking at potentially demographic changes in that particular area, in Area 3, and projecting what an increase in student enrollment might look like. And I think it was around 400 at some point in time. But did you look also at potential changes, plus or minus, in the other districts? So that's question one. Question two is, also in your demographic study, did you look at, did you do a breakdown, a socioeconomic breakdown, in terms of where we may be seeing, you know, increases or decreases in enrollment? And so, you know, and where that, again, might be occurring. And then the third question was, I think you'd stated that based on the information that you had, that you'd been given, that we need to make a decision, I think you were saying by December of 2023, and my interpretation is you're saying that it's basically we have to make the decision at that point to then be able to secure the land and to begin the planning process. And the reason I'm asking kind of what the, when the decision needs to be made is I'm sure you know as a demographer that near-term forecasts are much more accurate than long-term forecasts. And so potentially if we're in an uncertain time in terms of forecasting, which it seems that we are, we probably want to let things play out before we pull the trigger on making a decision. So those are the three questions I had for you.

[9524] SPEAKER_30: Yes, and great questions. I was mainly focusing, again, our report covers the next six years. And again, usually the initial three years are the most accurate. Once we get out six years, there's less certainty, one, because of the uncertainty of what's happening in the development area. And secondly, we only have birth data that helps us understand the incoming kindergarten populations out four years, because we know about the one, two, three, and four-year-olds out there. So yeah, we get out six years, it gets a little challenging. We have to make more assumptions. You go out 10 years, it gets really a lot less accurate. And so again, we talk about potential development out that far, but a lot of new projects can come online and get approved. And so again, even going out 10 years, again, is a significant challenge. And so we were just focusing on that one area, but I am aware that the other school that will see some development impact over time is Schilling. So those are the really the two sites I see with future growth potential beyond the six-year projections we've done. In terms of the other items, we try to do our best to address all the issues, the most important issues, but we can't foresee every item that's going to come along. making a decision by summer of 2023 would be to say, you know, it's time to hire an architect to start designing a school. Again, if there's a delay in the requirement, if you can negotiate something with the developer and the city, then obviously if that's delayed, then we can at least see what the enrollment at the beginning of the 2023-24 school year is looking like. But again, even understanding what's happening short-term with this, the impacts of the pandemic and the economy, and the impacts it's had on mobility, you know, there could be some additional fluctuations up or down, but again, they could be short-term as compared to what we think is happening long-term. It is going to be a challenging time over the next couple of years. until we get more consistent and stable patterns that emerge.

[9705] Aiden Hill: And just the last question, and you were cutting in and out, so maybe I missed that part. But in your demographic analysis, did you also look at sort of the socioeconomic breakdown in terms of where we might be seeing growth or not growth?

[9724] SPEAKER_30: No, we didn't have the socioeconomic data. that we were analyzing. And although, in general, we would anticipate that that population would decline basically due to affordability. However, if there is success in creating affordable units, then we could see an increase. So I don't think that that's really something that is easy to predict at this time and we didn't have that type of data in order to do that type of analysis.

[9762] Aiden Hill: Great, thank you very much.

[9766] SPEAKER_40: Member Marquez. Yes, thank you. A couple of my questions are already answered, so I'll make this really short. One of the questions I did have when it comes to the census, are we relying on the census for the socioeconomic information as well as the age groups of the children that we anticipate are going to live in the new area?

[9785] SPEAKER_30: I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear.

[9787] SPEAKER_40: So are we are we depending on are we dependent on the information that's going to be given to us from the census that will let us know with regards to the socioeconomic levels as well as the family, the family size or growth of family in that actual area?

[9805] SPEAKER_30: I was basing it on, again, some historic Again, I was looking at the yield rate from other projects that have been built, and especially in that location. And so, again, as each developer builds their projects, they can target different demographics. And so, again, that's something that we are going to have to watch and see what matriculates over time.

[9832] SPEAKER_40: Thank you for that. And my second question is, In the consideration of the actual count of students enrolled, under the Crossroads High School, is that where we're identifying our independent studies students? Because we do have the variation in age, which could also be students that in the future would actually attend this potential new school that is being proposed.

[9856] SPEAKER_30: Right. And we assume that that population stayed at its current level, and that may be a bit overstated and some of those students may return to the high school campus.

[9874] SPEAKER_40: Thank you.

[9877] Bowen Zhang: Student board member.

[9880] SPEAKER_37: I had more of a simple question, I suppose. In slide 12, you stated that the site is being donated to the district conditionally. I was wondering what those conditions are.

[9891] SPEAKER_30: Wondering what the I'm sorry, the sound didn't come clear through.

[9897] SPEAKER_37: Oh, yeah, of course.

[9898] Terrence Grindall: Student member, actually, I can answer that if you don't mind. Of course. The only condition is that we start construction by that August 25th, August of 25th time frame. That's the condition. And then it'd be built that we can't just use it for a yard. It has to be for an elementary school. Those are the only conditions.

[9917] SPEAKER_37: All right. Thank you.

[9919] Terrence Grindall: Right.

[9921] Bowen Zhang: I see none. Superintendent, you want to conclude?

[9925] Mark Triplett: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. And one thing I think maybe hasn't been mentioned, but I wanted to get clarity from you is that the numbers on slide 7, the 189 students, those are only NUSD students. Is that correct?

[9940] SPEAKER_30: That is correct.

[9941] Mark Triplett: And we don't currently have the number of students or number of young people that are not in NUSD in that area. Correct?

[9950] SPEAKER_30: Correct. But we should have that data hopefully within the next six months when the final census data is released. Great.

[9958] Mark Triplett: Thank you. So there could be other students in that area that are just not going to NUSD schools.

[9965] SPEAKER_30: Correct. And Anakin will also get a good picture of how many two and three-year-olds there are that are going to be coming into the system.

[9975] Mark Triplett: Great. Thank you very much.

[9979] Bowen Zhang: Thank you, have a great rest of the night. Moving on to next 10.3 facility project update. Do we have any public speakers for this? Okay, Superintendent Triplett.

[9994] Mark Triplett: Sorry, I'll turn it over to Ms. Dela Cruz.

[9998] Marie dela Cruz: Thank you, Dr. Triplett. We like to provide regular updates to the board on our facilities projects and Right now, we have a lot of progress in our HVAC replacement and landscaping. And I thought it would be a good idea for our project managers to let you know what the timelines look like and where we're at on several of our facilities projects. So we have Ms. Denny here from RGM Kramer to give the board an update on our facilities projects, bond projects as well as non-bond projects.

[10037] SPEAKER_43: Good evening. I am so happy to be here. This is my first time being here in person. All right. So let's go over quickly what we're going to go over tonight. We're going to be covering all our HVAC projects which have begun construction as well as our landscape projects. the Newark Junior High School stair reconstruction, Coyote Hills fencing and security project, and the pool evaluation that we started at the high school and junior high school.

[10075] Richelle Piechowski: Oh.

[10077] SPEAKER_43: I'd like you to do it. Thank you. OK, so for the HVAC phase one. So phase one means, can I have the next slide, please? The phase one projects means rooftop HVAC units that weigh the equal amount or less than the existing units. And the reason we're doing those first is because we do not have to go to the division of the state architect for their approval. If the units weigh more than the existing units, then there are structural implications. So we're starting out with these projects. The original construction budget for this project was three and a half million, and due to COVID, the district is seeking supplemental funding sources. This is really a complex procurement process. You know, we could have just gone to a general contractor to get these units, but to expedite this, we've gone through a CMAS multiple award procurement process. And it's provided a lot of value to the school district. And it has enabled the manufacturing of these units to save us time. So the units were manufactured in Texas. And then they were shipped to Bakersfield for a rust-resistant coating. They're going to get curb adapters. So that's what the units sit on, the curb adapter. And there's going to be MERV-13 filters. Every week we have extensive tracking of every unit and Eric's created a wonderful color coded spreadsheet we all look at. And you know due to COVID just about every school district in the country is doing HVAC improvements just like us. So you know and there's been a lot of supply chain issues but they're on their way. We're also doing meetings weekly with our contractor, which includes our mechanical engineer and architect to make sure the project's fully coordinated. Next slide, please. Okay, so phase one has started, and that's our elementary schools at Coyote Hills, Birch Grove Primary, Schilling and Kennedy, for a total of 99 rooftop units. So the school district has a total of 339 AC units, and we're going to be replacing 276 of them over the next couple of months. We have two contractors. One is S&H Construction, which you awarded their contract for increment one, and for increment two is the Junior High and High School, which is Rodan Builders.

[10257] SPEAKER_42: All right.

[10261] SPEAKER_34: Yeah.

[10267] SPEAKER_43: So the HVAC phase, is it OK if I talk? OK, phase one, increment one project, this is You know we've all been working hard with a lot of coordination for this week because this Saturday is when all the magic is going to happen. We've had a lot of coordination and this Saturday you might have heard that we're going to have a helicopter come and be placing all the units on the roof at Coyote Hills. And the principals have all been fantastic to coordinate with and they're all very excited. Following Coyote Hills, we'll be working at the Birch Grove Primary School starting December 10th through the end of the year. Schilling Elementary Project will start December 17th to be completed at the end of the year. We're really taking advantage of the winter break when students are not around. And Kennedy Elementary School will start at the first of the year till January 10th. So the concept is that we're doing a lot of preparation during the weeks and then on Saturday is the big helicopter placement. All right, so landscape projects. I wanted to let you know that the group one projects that we have installed, that the plants are flourishing, and all the grasses are establishing, and it's really fun to watch everything grow, and they really enjoyed the rain we just had. For the landscape group two projects, that we have Coyote Hills, the high school, the Bridgepoint McGregor campus, and the district office. Our general contractor is Bordalusi Watkins that the board awarded. And our scope of work is irrigation, soil amendments, and plantings, including drought-tolerant plants and drought-tolerant no-mow grass. And this is going to save the district a lot of water, money savings, and also it'll lessen the load on your maintenance staff, because right now most of them are hand-watering the plants. We've been meeting with site principals and the contractor to coordinate to, you know, make sure we're not impacting the educational environment during construction. And we've established lay down areas, coordinating parking. Next slide, please. So here's a construction schedule. We've begun work at Bridgepoint McGregor. And basically every week for the next month, we're going to start at a new school. So the following week, we'll be starting at the district office. At Coyote Hills, we'll be starting in the middle of December. And at the high school, we'll be starting when the school break starts. And then after the first of the year, all the plants will go in. So for the next month and a half, we're going to be working on irrigation infrastructure, and then all the plants will go in. Next slide, please. Okay. So, you know, we have done a lot of work in two weeks. When we were here a couple weeks ago, we appreciated the approval of the change order, and we have had two concrete pours since that time. Stair number three is complete. Stair number two, we've finished one concrete pour, and tomorrow it will be completed with the final concrete pour. Next slide, please. Okay, so we had some extra plants and we took advantage of that and this is between wings C and D. And I want to thank Eric for always being there after school and on weekends to make all this magic happen. And, you know, it was really good timing because I understand a teacher that had a classroom near this planting area passed and Ms. Resha was really appreciative of this work and is dedicating this garden to that teacher. Next slide, please. Okay. improved area at the junior high school with these plants. All right, last slide please. All right, looking forward to the future, we've been working studying shade structures at elementary schools. We have walked the six elementary school sites with the principals to determine where they would like to have a shade structure. And the goal is to have them near the cafeteria and multipurpose rooms. We made sure to get their first and second choice of locations. Then we came out with an architect and shade structure vendor. And we were looking at underground utilities and looking at division of state architect requirements. and codes. And actually tomorrow we're going to have a meeting with the architect to go over the allowable building areas and review the initial plan. For the fencing project at Coyote Hills, the design is almost complete. Earlier this week we had an underground utility locator come out. And, you know, because we want to make sure when we install the fence, we're not going to hit anything we don't want to. We're going to get the CAD computer-aided drafting drawings from the utility locator tomorrow. And then the design team can finish up their design. We have already requested a check for the fees for the division of the state architect. And we will be submitting to DSA at the end of the month. Okay, valuation of pools. We had a meeting. We reached out to an industry leader, a product design group. They specialize in pools. They do all, pretty much all the high school pools in the state of California. And we met with John Rodriguez, the assistant principal out there, with custodians, with Rachel, the athletic director. with Gordon, who's the water polo coach, and we had a really good walk to understand the issues out there. And we learned about there's filter valve issues, the heater is out, they have lighting issues, the plaster in the pool is chipping and there's rust, the tiles that surround the pools are loose, And the trench drains surrounding the pools are broken in areas. And we also found some concrete cracking, which suggests that there is soil expansion, which means that there's probably a pipe leak under there. And the site also told us that they would really like new pool covers. And currently, there's no ADA lift to the pool. So those are some initial things we learned about the deficiencies of the pool. So we are going to be getting a proposal from Aquatic Design Group. And that proposal will be like a course of action and study to share with you at a later time. All right, that concludes my report.

[10764] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. I'll bring it back to the board. Any questions from the board?

[10770] Terrence Grindall: Could I just ask about just your last point? Were you referring to both pools, the junior high school and the high school? And a follow-up question, which may be for the superintendent, is what is the utilization of the middle school pool right now? I'm sorry. I jumped the gun. The junior high school pool.

[10788] SPEAKER_43: Right, right. So very good point. So you know what? I was just exclusively talking about the high school. But we did visit the junior high school. And my understanding is that has not been used for eight years.

[10802] Mark Triplett: That's correct. There's no current use of the junior high pool. However, due to wanting to make sure that there's no, the water needs to continually be in there and it needs to be serviced. Otherwise, I understand that there could be other issues that come up. So even though it's not being used, we have to maintain it to a certain level, which is costly. So we definitely want to think about, in the near future, getting some direction from the board as to whether we want to actually eliminate that pool, which also has a cost to it, or make a different decision about maintaining or refurbishing that pool.

[10841] Terrence Grindall: And I hope, as a part of that discussion, thoughts about the potential marketing of that pool to swim schools or such swim classes, because there may be a funding source to provide those improvements. And anyway, so not to have to deal with that right now, but I hope that's a part of it.

[10863] SPEAKER_35: Yeah, thank you for that.

[10868] Terrence Grindall: That's all I have except to thank you for the presentation. Student board member?

[10873] SPEAKER_37: I would also like to say thank you for the hard work of your team and you, and it's truly appreciated as a student.

[10879] SPEAKER_43: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

[10885] Bowen Zhang: Seeing no other comments, thank you for your presentation, and have a great rest of the night. Moving on to the history adoption process, any public speakers, public comment on this subject?

[10903] SPEAKER_42: Yes, we do have one online speaker. Brian Foster, you may begin.

[10911] SPEAKER_18: Thank you very much, President Zong and members of the Board. My comments tonight will be very brief. Initially, I was prepared to present serious concerns that my NMHS social studies colleagues asked me to share with you regarding the lack of input we have been given in the social studies textbook selection process. Just before 8 p.m. last night and earlier today, Mr. Dulowich essentially reset this process and we are now hopeful that we will have the full opportunity to provide valuable input in the selection of these basic resources. I would only note that a review of textbook options cannot be done quickly. Since each teacher typically teaches two to three courses, and we have four competing publishers, each of us would be reviewing eight to 12 textbooks. I think we could all agree that even a few hours would be insufficient to conduct a meaningful review. I want to thank Mr. Dolowich for recognizing the importance of teacher involvement in the selection of our next history, economics, and American government textbooks, And we are looking forward to adding eventually ethnic studies and psychology textbooks in the future as well. Thank you very much for your time tonight.

[10978] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Any other public speaker? Superintendent Triplett.

[10983] Mark Triplett: Thank you. So we have Mr. Delaware here, Director of Teaching and Learning to talk a little bit about the history adoption process. This year, we've embarked on a very thorough process to adopt new history textbooks. And it's included a lot of engagement K-12. And so I'll turn it over to Mr. Delaware to explain and talk a little bit more about that.

[11005] SPEAKER_08: All right. Thank you. Good evening, members of the board. I'll wait for the deck to be pulled up. All right. Good evening, members of the board. For tonight's brief informational presentation, I'll identify three outcomes for us to communicate the vision and process for the History Adoption Committee this year to provide a detailed timeline for the board so that you understand the History Adoption Committee will follow this. And as Mr. Foster just mentioned, adjusted for the high school, which I'll speak to momentarily. And then thirdly, to provide context regarding state adopted publisher materials as well as a district rubric that will be used to receive staff input, as well as for a selection criteria. So the trivia question for the night is, when was the last time NUSD formally adopted a history curriculum in Newark? And since no one else is jumping the gun, I'll come out and say it is 2006. And in comparison to the other three core subjects of English language arts, mathematics, and science, This is, in fact, the oldest of our textbooks in our classrooms, K-12, and so really the starkest need. If we look at this timeline and subcommittee recommendation, in September I began meeting with state officials as well as the history coordinator at Alameda County Office of Education. I also met with two districts in Alameda County that most recently adopted history materials. and they were very forthcoming in terms of the nuts and bolts, but also the challenges, and provided some documents that we could adapt. I convened the first meeting on October 20th with the History Adoption Subcommittee. That included a vision process, timeline, and a review of materials. And so from that, we had the materials actually in the board training room. The teachers on the committee were able to review it and begin the review process, and as mentioned, there's really considerable more time needed for our high school department, as we've learned. And so I've really taken steps to partner with our labor union, as well as the high school department, to provide some extended window. Actually, personally, physically brought the grade nine through 12 materials to them. And we're looking at creative solutions to try to release them during the day or also compensate some of them after school in order to provide a really comprehensive review of those materials. We had our first publisher presentation on November 9th, especially based on the elementary teachers and their top two choices. And the plan of action is to really partner with certain publishers and have them send their materials in January after we have a recommendation from the Curriculum Council, and we would move forward. We would pilot those two materials at various levels, elementary, junior high, and eventually high school, and again, providing more flexibility and extended window. We would also have a public viewing of the materials, February and March. Ultimately, the plan of action is to go back to the Curriculum Council with the recommendation, and then with that recommendation, bring it here to the board in March. And so that's the plan of action for this year. It's an aggressive timeline so that we can have new history materials beginning effective August of 2022. And so for our purposes, we used a rubric, adapted a rubric focused on the history social science framework from the state in 2017. We also looked at the review of state adopted materials and as mentioned, neighboring districts. So they began reviewing materials in this board training room October 20th. And we see we received a number of input from elementary and junior high. And like I said we're going to provide an extended window for our high school to give us some feedback. And those materials have been scanned to me with results. This is a look at our history evaluation tool focuses on six categories diversity and inclusivity accessibility and engagement assessment the presentation of the content specific to literacy, technology access, and then critical thinking with rigor and inquiry. And so those are some of those state-adopted programs at the top with links for our teachers. And if you go to the California Department of Education website, these are the only state adopted history programs. So that's what we're using. And you can see here, there's no mention of grades nine through 12. And the reason for that, the state doesn't provide a list for grades nine through 12, but the programs do provide a new curriculum for those high school grades. They are simply not state adopted on the CDE website. So that's what we're using. to select from based with that rubric. And so we have all publisher materials. They've been reviewed and rated. The high school, like I said, they're housed at the high school. So they'll be able to interact with them during that extended window. We received a presentation already from Saavis, which is a combination of Pearson and Prentice Hall. And next up is November 30th. We have McGraw Hill. And then we're just going to listen to our teacher voice and move forward with the piloting process and be as transparent as possible with the public hearing. So that is the conclusion of the presentation. And if there are any clarifying remarks or questions regarding

[11368] Nicole Pierce-Davis: And if it's OK with you, Mr. Balowich, I do want to add, this process actually started at the end of last year, where our teachers uplifted that this was a priority for them during our professional development. And I just want to give a lot of credit to Mr. Balowich, who has taken this this year. And really, we've made it a priority in Ed Services, but he really has taken lead in making sure all this happens. And I just want to say thank you to that.

[11389] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. I appreciate it. Member Marcus.

[11394] SPEAKER_40: Thank you for that presentation. I'm going to go back to slide number four, where it shows a timeline of January 10 through March 7. And as an educator myself, I'm that two-month window. And I know we're looking for crunch time. I want to make sure that the teachers are feeling 100%, about 200% supported at the same time, and not that they're being asked to look for or feel pressure in any way that's trying to find a one size fits all shoe when it comes to the materials that they're going to be using until the next round of adoption comes up when it comes up to our history material. Three, the areas that I'm concerned about that I know for sure as educators that they're looking at as well is the materials are going to be ELD adaptable and approachable for the students that we're serving here in Newark Unified as well as college prep. And more importantly, for their students that are advanced, so that we have this ongoing cycle of three focus areas, so that it's just not one publisher. Perhaps if we go back to Alameda County Office of Education and speak with a history curriculum advisor asking for what their school district is using. I know that at one point, Alameda County Office of Ed was using two publishers. right so one site let's say um juvenile hall was using one particular butler academy was using academics excuse me but using one particular publisher that was approved by the by the district and then you would have the community the community day school using another or that were agreed upon by the school so i just want to really make sure that we're that we're offering what our students need and i'm I'm guaranteeing that the teachers that are fellow educators are looking for the same thing. And my heart goes out to them, because 60 days, that's crunch time.

[11505] SPEAKER_08: I appreciate that. And we'll absolutely be receptive to their input and voice throughout the process. So if they're on the front end or back end, if that needs to be extended, I think the plan of action really is we want to be able to provide professional development during the summer so that in August of 2022, they feel supported and really ready to use the new curriculum. That's the end game. So I absolutely hear you on that point in terms of the window. I appreciate that.

[11537] Aiden Hill: Thank you, Mr. Dulwich. And I want to echo member Marquez's comments. So I think, as you all know, I'm currently a teacher at Cupertino High School. I teach business, but I'm also a certificated history teacher and social studies teacher. And so I'm very concerned about the timeline and also kind of the structure of how we're approaching this. So, you know, from a teacher's standpoint, textbooks are tools. and the teachers are the workers. And a best practice is that the workers specify what tools are best for them. It's not management, right? Because it is the workers that are using the tools. So I'm concerned that we've got a district-led effort. It really should be a teacher-led effort. I think that we can lay out some guidelines as a district But it needs to be driven by the teachers, because ultimately they're going to be living with this. And as you pointed out in your presentation, the last time that these textbooks had been refreshed was 15 years ago. And that's usually how long a teacher has to live with a textbook, 10 to 15 years. So I think it's It's not a best practice to be rushing this process for something that teachers are going to have to be living with for a long period of time. And I don't see that there's necessarily a burning platform for this. So I think the important thing is that we get it done right. And so what I'd really like to see maybe going forward is that rather than you coming up here the next time and giving a presentation, that we have teachers coming up, and they're the ones that are driving this process, and they're the ones that are getting behind the recommendations. And they feel that this has been fully vetted, and they're really behind it. So I'm hoping you can make that happen.

[11656] Mark Triplett: Superintendent. If I may, just to be clear, when you look at the timeline, so teachers have engaged throughout the entire process thus far and will continue to be engaged. So if you see the committee is made up from October, is made up of teachers. And then teachers are the ones that have made decisions around analyzing the rubric, analyzing the materials. Then the teachers are the ones that are making recommendations to a curriculum council, which is made up of teachers. And then the teachers are going to be the ones that pilot. We could consider a two-year timeline for adopting a history curriculum. But what we've heard from the teachers is that this is urgent, that we haven't had the materials, and that we really need to do it in an expeditious manner. So this is a one-year timeline. If the board wanted to recommend a two-year timeline, we could certainly consider that. And we want to have the direction of the board on that.

[11717] Aiden Hill: member Hill a quick follow-up so we know one thing that I feel uncomfortable about and I you know I've seen this sort of as a pattern is that we talk about committees that are doing a variety of things but we never ever see the names of the people that are on the committees and they never come and speak before us and so I'd like to see who are the teachers that are on this and I'd like them to be coming forward in joining these meetings and providing input that would that would I Because I promise you that almost every teacher would say that that is too aggressive of a timeline Remember no.

[11757] Terrence Grindall: Yes. Thank you And I appreciate the superintendent and mr. Dolowitz's Flexibility to work with the teachers to find the time that's that's necessary. I think I think it is urgent It's been a long time. But also I hear I hear I flexibility, and if more time is needed, then it'll be taken to do it right. So I appreciate that. I wanted to understand where are the opportunities in this process for the community in general and for the board to be involved in this process or to at least observe it. So where do you see the community entering into this process? It's kind of hard for me to tell on the flowchart.

[11800] SPEAKER_08: So most notably in that February 22nd to March 7th window where the materials are displayed publicly for viewing, I think it makes a lot of sense because this is a very lasting decision that there's a periodic update in the beginning of 2022, which could include members from the committee. But I think I wasn't, I didn't necessarily drive the point home even predating As Ms. Pierce-Davis addressed to last year and the years prior, there has been a widespread outcry from our NUSD teachers in terms of the need for history to textbooks falling apart. And I don't think the significance of the decision is lost on them. And so they're absolutely a critical part. We started planning with them during the pandemic and even in the summer with NTA leaders. So that's been a part of it, a significant part, and we continue to be flexible and supportive as we navigate this process. But I think that'll be something for us to consider as we continue throughout this process.

[11867] Terrence Grindall: I appreciate that, but it might be worth keeping in mind how the public in general gets involved, rather than just the two weeks in February and early March. What's the way for the public to be engaged in this? We just don't want to have a situation like you'll see in other more backward parts of this country where the history curriculums become issues. So I'd like to have a transparent, open process with the community in general as we go.

[11905] Bowen Zhang: So before we proceed, I do want to remind the board, if you look at our agenda, staff report 10.1 through 3 is information discussion. This is only information. So we got to be a little bit careful about providing guidance on this item. Any other comments from the rest of the board? Student board member?

[11925] SPEAKER_37: Sorry. I would definitely like to reiterate, at least from a student's perspective, I appreciate the urgency on history textbooks, especially. We do know history is an important factor of students' lives. And it's a big topic for us to learn about our previous mistakes. So I appreciate the urgency, as previously stated.

[11946] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. OK. Thank you, Mr. Dolovesh. Have a great rest of the evening. Thank you. Thank you. Next is student expulsion. I move that we approve the expulsion stipulation. May I get a second? I'll second. Seconded by Member Grundahl. Member Marquez, how do you vote? Yes. Member Grundahl, how do you vote? Yes. Member Hill? Yes. My vote is yes. Motion carries with four ayes. Member Nguyen is absent. Old Business 12.1, District Goals and Superintendent Objective for Year 2021 and 2022. We do have a public speaker, Ms. Cindy Parks.

[11996] Cindy Parks: Good evening. I hope the viewing public is paying attention to what the board is considering tonight under the district goals and superintendent objectives. One of the objectives under goal one under fiscal vitality says increase reserves and achieve reserve goal increase reserves and achieve the reserve goal. Yet we have seen presentations confirming the district has already met the 17% reserve goal. So why is this listed? Goal 2.A is support positive community interaction and communication. This goal would almost be laughable except I think you actually believe you can restrict the community's interaction and muzzle their communication. This is still America. Newark Unified is a public governmental agency and we, the public, still have the laws of the land on our side, which is provided for with the First Amendment. Even board bylaw 9323 recognizes government code 54954.3 and states the board shall not prohibit public criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, services, acts or omissions. In addition, the board may not prohibit public criticism of district employees. The description included a resolution on civility in order to support respectful and civil interaction and communication among parents, students, school, district staff, and the community. Wow, another resolution, a piece of paper. How about tackling the disrespect the school staff faces each day from the students, focus on the fight clubs at the secondary sites, enforcers closed campus policy, and suspension or expulsion Ed Code 48900. along with the other violations outlined in the student handbook which aren't being enforced. Goal 2B, school quality root cause analysis regarding the impact on enrollment. You want to hire another consultant, one to tell you why enrollment is decreasing. Moving on, goal number 3A, the middle school design. It says instructional design, facilitate a middle school design team process. But where is the actual instructional component? Will there be a core combination such as science, math, history, English, PE, and electives? What about the extracurricular activities? Why isn't there anything listed about union negotiations? I assume the report card and whether they're going to have separate lunch and brunch schedules are to be discussed. I applaud the town hall meeting component. However, may I suggest the process also be shared through your internal parent avenues? As you know, through distant learning, many households do not have internet. Finally, the most important, how are most of these goals measurable and where is the actual timeline?

[12168] Carina Plancarte: Thank you.

[12170] Bowen Zhang: Any other public speakers? Back to the superintendent. Thank you. Ms.

[12175] Mark Triplett: Gutierrez, could you put the slides up, please? as Ms. Gutierrez is doing that. So board members, this is the item that we discussed a couple of meetings back and had an opportunity for board to give input and weigh into district goals and superintendent objectives. So I'm coming back tonight to present them in a format based on your feedback and your input. So when Ms. Gutierrez. Yeah, the accountability framework for implementation of initiatives, please. So I'm just going to go, I won't go over all of these goals, because we've talked about them at length. But I wanted to just highlight the structure that of this new document. So you saw in the agenda item, there was the attachment of the previous document and the notes that I took during the discussion from you, the board. And then what I did is based on your input and your suggestions, I created a new document that included your suggestions and input. And so if you look on the top, and we can make that much larger, Ms. Gutierrez, please. There we go. So if you look on the top left-hand corner, That's where the goal areas are. So those are relatively the same. Goal area one, fiscal vitality. Goal area two, community engagement and communication. Goal area three, instructional excellence for equity. And goal area four, exceptional learning facilities and environments. And so then what I did, if you scroll back up to the top, Ms. Gutierrez, please. So then underneath each goal area is the specific goals. So you see goal 1A, 2A, 2B, et cetera. And then next to that is the actual objectives for this year. So an example is the first one, underneath fiscal vitality and positive certification, what we discussed at the previous board meeting, the need for some, based on the challenges to our budgets and what we anticipate as being challenges moving forward. Position adjustments would be the objective for this year, and the description being making the necessary position adjustments based on projected enrollment, which we know has gone down. And then you see to the right, column D. Can you scroll up slightly, Ms. Gutierrez, so we can see the column Maybe that's as high as it goes. So the next column, staff strategies, is some, of course it's not all, but it's some of the main strategies and actions that we'll take as staff this year within that objective. And then based on what I heard you request last time, I articulate the midyear benchmark or the way at the midyear that we will, that I'll be able to show to the board our progress towards this goal. And then the end of year measurable outcome, so that is by the end of the year, what is the concrete thing that will indicate whether or not this goal has been, or objective has been met. And then the other, the next column, board policies and actions, is the role and the actions of the board within each objective. And then lastly, I know there was a lot of talk about enrollment and what would be the impact of goals on enrollment. And I think there was also input around articulating these goals in a way that shows across many different goals what would be the impact on enrollment. just as an example. And so in that final column is the long-term impact. So this isn't what would happen within this year, but rather if we follow through on this objective and we do meet our measurable outcome by the end of the year, what do we anticipate moving forward could ultimately be the positive impact on student outcomes, budget, enrollment, et cetera. So I'll just leave it at that, and then I'd be happy to take any questions. But just ending with, I know there was a real push for these to be smarty goals, measurable, time sensitive, et cetera, et cetera. And so that's what we tried to do in this document is to articulate them in that way.

[12465] Bowen Zhang: Any comments from the rest of the board? Member Hill?

[12470] Aiden Hill: Yeah, thank you, Dr. Triplett. So, I mean, I'm concerned about a number of these, but I think that maybe we ought to take them one at a time rather than just, you know, going overall. But the thing that I'm the most concerned about is if we look at when you put out this document that talks about the goal setting process, the number two point is underlying assumptions. And one of the things, and you just referenced it, is that as we put goals together, that they need to be smart goals. And as I actually brought forward in our last meeting, there's a process for how that actually works. And in my high school, at Cupertino High School in business, I actually teach kids about goal setting, and I specifically teach them about the smart goal process. And I share this information. But I want to hand out to everybody here And I don't have copies for everybody, but I think I have them for most. So this is actually just one guide that we use for students in terms of everybody. I've got one extra one here. The things that I'm the most concerned about are, so SMART stands for specific. It stands for measurable. Here's where sometimes you'll see some differentiation. It can be actionable or attainable, then realistic, and then time-bound. I'm concerned as I look at all of these goals that they're not specific enough. But what I'm more concerned about, and this is a broad sort of characterization, is that they really are not measurable and they are not time-bound. And if you look at this document and you look at how, essentially, you set these types of goals, When you have a measurement, it is very, very clear what that measurement is and whether or not you're going to achieve it. And I think that many of these don't have that component. And then from a time-bound perspective, I didn't see any due dates. And so I really kind of think that we need to go back to the drawing board, because I don't think that these are really actionable goals. And I think they're going to be very hard to measure and determine whether we've achieved success. So that's my broader commentary, but I'll defer to other members in terms of what they're looking at in this particular document.

[12617] Bowen Zhang: So speaking of measurable goals, so this might be a bit out of school about this item, but I have long think that the best time to evaluate the superintendent is not at the end of June, it's around September. And the reason for that is in mid-September or late September, that's when we got the unaudited result of the previous year's budget. So you can have a clear picture about what happened last year, the fiscal update. And then at the end of September, you got the preliminary release of the dashboard score, which you will see the academic performance of the previous year. But given the superintendent contract says end of year, So that sort of prevented us from seeing the two very important metrics when we're evaluating a superintendent. So I would hope that we can, going forward, we can make some modification on that.

[12671] Terrence Grindall: Other board members? Well, I have some substantive comments. Some of them, I don't feel like some of the issues that I had that were addressed at the study session have been fully addressed. Maybe I didn't make them clear. I, you know, although the enrollment increases are, you know, are sprinkled throughout in terms of the long-term impacts, I just can't say enough that we really are in a crisis in terms of enrollment. We know, you know, and we know that there's an issue statewide, but we've seen a long-term challenge here in Newark. where, and anecdotally, we're hearing from people that we're hearing from parents who are not sending their children to our schools because of X, Y, or Z. And many times those X, Y's and Z's are not accurate. They're looking at a great school's score that doesn't reflect the real world and the great work that we're doing. So I really was expecting to see and hoping to see One of the goals being to get, to develop a strategy for marketing our strengths and addressing this misinformation that's out in the community that is keeping people from sending, keeping parents from sending their children to our school, whether they're homeschooling or going to other locations. So, and the school quality root cause analysis is sort of part one of that process, but I don't think we can wait for years to start undoing the negative perceptions that people have about what our educational product is. And I was hoping and expecting to see a goal of developing that marketing strategy And again, that doesn't mean we've turned the ship around, but that at least says we've got our hands on the wheel and we know which way to go. So that's a sort of a substantive issue that I have overarching in these, in the goals.

[12820] Mark Triplett: If I may, President John. So yeah, goal 2B. Is the is is attempting to address what you have brought up a member Grindel? What I heard from the board and from multiple people on the board was that we can't jump into things impetuously that we need to Really look at the causes first and really spend more time looking at causes before Jumping into something. I actually think that I having been in education for a long time and having increased enrollment in other positions, that we do know what some of the root causes are. But nonetheless, and I think some of the goal areas and the objectives that you see in here are intended to address what we do know is what attracts families to schools. So dual language immersion, a middle school, a strong middle school design, STEM initiative. So we know those things are what families are looking for. But nonetheless, I did add the goal 2B because I really heard from the board and so that was intended to be that. To do that kind of a really deep root cause analysis and do a deep study, it does take time. And so to do a study and then simultaneously build a marketing strategy is actually the opposite of what I thought I heard from the board, which was do the study, do the focus groups, really do a deep dive, and then come back and create a marketing strategy based on the information that was gathered.

[12927] Bowen Zhang: Any other comments from the board?

[12930] SPEAKER_40: One comment. When I read a document like this, it takes me back to whether it's site council or whether it's even the ELAC. This is a live document, correct? So when, am I correct, this is considered a live document, this isn't sealed or we have to leave it alone and then come back next or two years. Constant live document where something is always being looked at to be buffed, to be improved, right, to constantly reflect the consensus of those that are coming together and coming to a mutual agreement of what it is the information that we're really trying to focus on. With that being said, I'd like to go back to my co-board member when it comes to measuring. We as educators, we measure our students' academics and that measurement produces a grade. So when we have a live document like this, We, as a board, as well as in this case, because it's reflecting what we're doing, need to have that tangible. We need to have that number that can be measured, whether it's a grade, whether it's a rubric, whether it's a number. Because that is a form of how those who are reading this live document can say, oh, look, they passed. She passed, right? Versus, oh, needs improvement. So it keeps us, it holds us accountable, and at the same time, it offers for more transparency when it comes to a live document where someone in the audience or in the community can say, oh, I'd like to read that. They request it, they look at it, and they say, and they understand. Why? Because it ties us back to that accountability. Just like what they see with their students or with their children, it measures what they do, what the report cards measure what they do. I see this as, again, a live document, a report card, if you will. So when I reflect and I hear what my co-board members are saying, we need to come up with, whether it's that letter grade, a rubric, or some form where we can be held accountable. And that's my feedback.

[13071] Bowen Zhang: I mean, given we have one board member absent, I would suggest maybe we can continue working with the superintendent and bring this back when we have a full board vote on this, particularly when it comes to some of the measurable outcome. Maybe some benchmark metrics will be more helpful on some of these.

[13090] Terrence Grindall: Can I add one thing? I when it comes to the measurable outcomes, I mean, the way I read them, they're very measurable. However, there's a lot of plans in there. Right. So I hear Mr. Park's comment. There are a lot of plans, there's a lot of squishy stuff instead of real measurable goals. And I don't know, I don't have a magic bullet of what those things are, but that, you know, achieving a plan or achieving a resolution doesn't, you know, it is measurable and there is a timeframe involved, but it doesn't say a lot. So I wonder if there's a way to have something more like, something more technical that gets to the core of the issue rather than rather than just having completed a plan which you know could be a We could write a plan tonight and be terrible, or we can do a, or we can, you know, we can spend two years to do a plan and be great, but both of them are plans. So it's hard to measure what that means. So sorry if I was rambling a bit, but that is a problem I see in this, and that in attempting to measure these very difficult to measure things, sometimes the only achievement is the actual plan, and that's not really telling us much.

[13175] Mark Triplett: Yeah, I appreciate what you're saying. I think something that is important for the board to consider is we are coming back from a pandemic. And so really this year is developing baseline student achievement data, baseline attendance data, baseline discipline data. So California Dashboard, for example, all of this year's data will be baseline on there for moving forward. And we are trying to transform a district and turn around a district that has been in declining enrollment. And so part of that is we do need to build plans and then implement them. And the plans need to be really solid and deep and thoughtful before we just jump in. And so dual language immersion is an example where we built a plan. The board was really, looked it over and really scrutinized it well, and it was improved. And then we implemented the first phase. I think that's a huge success. And we also increased enrollment at that school based on that plan. So, but again, we don't want to then just say, okay, dual language immersion, done that. We really need to move on to phase two of dual language immersion. And as part of that, the goal is to do some baseline assessments of the Dual Language Immersion Program this year, so then we can move forward and continue to grow and really measure success over the long term.

[13273] Bowen Zhang: There's a small point on the increased reserve. I guess instead of saying achieve reserve goal, it's probably maintain reserve goal. we've already have the reserve goal, 17%. So the description should be probably maintain reserve goal to address ongoing budgeting uncertainty from the state and the federal government.

[13291] Mark Triplett: Well, we were really thoughtful about that one because we have a 17% reserve, I think, as of this point in time. Is that right, Ms. Delacruz? However, when we continue to look at the economic forecast, we recognize that we're going to be in a situation both statewide and with our enrollment as it is and funding as it is, where we won't be able to most likely maintain in the out years a 17% reserve. And so then we really want to think about how we balance the important and necessary adjustments in positions with maintaining a reserve, but really having to be conscious of how we Saying that we're going to keep it at 17 I think is something that we just need to be really thoughtful of and we don't want to set ourselves up for an unrealistic situation. Ms. Delacruz, did you want to elaborate on that at all?

[13358] Marie dela Cruz: Yes, Dr. Triplett. Regarding the reserves, we did talk about, you know, at the unaudited actuals, we were able to reach our 17%. But in looking at the future years and the change in one-time funding, you know, we were fortunate to have a lot of COVID-related funds and some support from the state that enabled us to reach our goal a lot more, I mean, earlier than what we had anticipated. But like Dr. Chiplett said, because of the uncertainty of our enrollment and the drastic significant decline, because our projections were really based on straight cohort. So to have a 5% decline was really unexpected because we were very conservative. And it's those kinds of uncertainties that really make it difficult to say, you know, we'll be able to keep that 17%, although we did achieve it, and I did mention that it may change, and just looking at our preliminary projections for our first interim, it's likely that it will change and will probably continue to, and we'll have to make adjustments as we go along.

[13440] Terrence Grindall: I guess I want to, I hear all that, but I also, I want to reiterate President Zhang's point. Maybe this is a wordsmithing sort of thing, but that first line says achieve when we have it right now. So if there's a, you know, maintain it in the out years, whatever, however you can wordsmith this, but just when that word achieve, it sounds like we aren't at that even now. So that's, I guess I should check in with the, with President Jiang about that, but is that the crux of your issue?

[13478] Bowen Zhang: Well, that, I mean, don't want to be too speculative. I guess this current fiscal year, we'll probably easily maintain this reserve goal, I guess. Going forward, that's given we already achieved this reserve goal. How are we going to maintain that where we can afford to have some drop in the reserve? That will be, yeah. Maintain or like having a lower threshold, let's say 14%, 13% or something?

[13507] Marie dela Cruz: Yeah, that is something to consider because, I mean, 17%, is that the minimum? Or is that going to be our standard? So if that is the standard, then you have to look at possibly trying to achieve something higher to accommodate those fluctuations in our enrollment and those other factors that impact our funding.

[13532] Bowen Zhang: Member Hill?

[13535] Aiden Hill: Yeah, and maybe just to give some additional data for consideration if we're going to bring this back. So in goal area three, so we're calling that instructional excellence for equity. I'd prefer that we actually keep the terms that we were using before. The term that we were using before was promote a focus on continual improvement of teaching and learning, unless the board decides that they want to change it. But I think we should keep it. So it's goal area three. So we've apparently changed what we're calling that from what we called it before to what we're calling it now. But then within those three areas, and this is again the importance of being crystal clear on things and how things need to tie back to metrics. So on dual language immersion, the whole purpose behind this program and why we were implementing this is that on the California school dashboard, we have a real challenge with English learners in our system and English language acquisition. And that is a measurable component of the dashboard, and we are not performing well. And the whole purpose of us putting this in was a tool to try to change that. That was our goal. And as you know, I've been critical that we don't have a way of measuring our success there. And what I'm now even more concerned about is when we look in the far right column where it says long-term impacts, so we're saying enrollment increases. I don't think that that was ever the goal for this. The goal is to actually move the needle on English language acquisition. But then number two, we now start to dilute this and talk about saying that our goal is increasing the number of students developing proficiency in two languages and graduating with a seal of biliteracy. I don't believe that we ever talked about that. And I think that we really need to stick to our knitting. We've got a serious issue and we need to have our program laser focused on solving that issue and it can't get diluted with other types of objectives. So I think we ought to go and take a look at that. The second effort here, middle school design, as a former project manager, I spent 26 years as a project manager, we have a due date, right? This is a date certain that we're saying that we're going to have a middle school in operation by the next school year. That is roughly 10 months from now. We're talking in this line item about having a plan that we're going to be reviewing and approving by the end of our school year right now, which is June. It's too late. That's game over. We have to have a plan in detail around how we're going to accomplish every single one of these moving parts in terms of making this transition. And that plan needs to be ready. I think, quite frankly, by the middle of January for the board to review. Because otherwise, there's a high likelihood, if we don't do that, that we're going to be missing important components that are going to hit us later on, or we're going to end up slipping dates because we haven't forecasted properly. And then going to measurable, if we look again on the far right column there, It says, middle school plan results in better outcomes for students. As you guys will go and look at the documents that I've just shared around goal setting and SMART goals, better is not measurable. So when we use terms like better, improved, those are not measurable. We need to have very, very concrete measurements. Third point, TK12 STEM initiative. I had a question about what a master of code certificate is. You can tell me later about that. If we go to the next section, professional development, again, on the far right-hand column, we talk about improved teacher and support staff efficacy. I have no idea what that means and how we're going to measure that. Also, there are typos in that area where we've got basically four bullet points. There are two bullet points that are repeated. And then in goal 4A, when we're talking about facilities improvement plan, on the far right-hand side we have ensure plan is implemented on time and under budget. So I think that we need to make sure that we very clearly identify what is the plan, what are the components of the plan, what is the due date, and what is the budget. So we need to know that now or soon if we're going to measure around whether we're actually achieving that. So that's my input on these various goals. And as staff goes back to reconsider that, I would appreciate them considering that.

[13827] Mark Triplett: Thank you, Member Hill. So just to clarify, so long term impacts is not the measurable outcomes. So where it says end of year measurable outcomes, that's the measurable outcomes area. So the long term impact is what if we reach our goals and we hit our measurable outcomes, by the end of the year, and we continue to improve and grow whatever item it is, then the long-term impact is not something that there was any intention of being concrete and measurable. This is the long-term impact overall. So column F, if you can see that on your screen, because I know it's not up here, but column F, end-of-year measurable outcomes, that's the thing. That will be measured at the end.

[13876] Aiden Hill: So if we go to that column, that column is even more underwhelming. So I'm just looking right here at professional development. End of year measurable outcome. Quantify hours of PD completed for teachers and principals. So we're saying that our measurable outcome is we're just going to collect how much PD is done. And then the second measurable outcome is synthesize staff feedback forms. So we're going to collect a bunch of paper of what staff has said about this. And then it says quantify coaching and feedback cycles per educator. Not sure what that means and how we would measure that. So I think that there's a lot of work to do here.

[13922] Bowen Zhang: So here's my suggestions. Given that we don't have a full board, and also member Marquez, member Hill, and myself also have some requests for a certain modification, I think in the next couple of weeks, I think the superintendent can reach out to each of us in private to seek feedback on certain modifications. And hopefully next time when we have a full board, in the next regular board meeting that we can vote on a final, final draft. Because I don't think this is really time sensitive, right? So not voting on this is not preventing you from doing the work, right?

[13954] Mark Triplett: Well, we will definitely continue to do the work. I hesitate to reach out to each board member individually and get feedback because then it would, it possibly could be contradicting itself. I really think it's important to get feedback from the entire board as a board. Otherwise, it would be really, really difficult to move forward. I agree with that.

[13977] SPEAKER_40: I concur.

[13978] Bowen Zhang: Yeah, so then we'll, I think each board member today already gave sort of your relevant feedback, right? And is the board comfortable bringing this back or the board wants to vote on this today?

[13993] Terrence Grindall: I'd like to see some refinement.

[13995] Bowen Zhang: Okay. Member Marquez?

[13997] SPEAKER_40: I agree.

[13998] Mark Triplett: Okay. I'm happy to do that. I would need, I'm sorry but I don't have a clarity right now on what kind of feedback the board, the board collectively is having me change in this because to my mind there are quantifiable measurable outcomes which is what I heard was a request and likewise there are There are things that were added in here based on what I felt like I heard from the board. And so I think I would need more direction if I was going to change things.

[14039] Terrence Grindall: President Chang, would a work session with the board, an additional one, be appropriate?

[14045] Bowen Zhang: Yeah, I think maybe we can do that, an additional study session or workshop.

[14050] Mark Triplett: OK, thank you.

[14052] Bowen Zhang: Yeah, we haven't had a study session for like, a while, so I think it's fine. Okay. We've got to schedule this by the end of the year, obviously.

[14063] Terrence Grindall: Yes. I have one point. I want to clarify. My understanding is this is our document as a board. These were our goals. Correct. And we have to own them, and you have to execute them. So we're taking very seriously.

[14083] Mark Triplett: Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, the goal areas were agreed upon by the board. The objectives are what has been articulated for me in order to perform this and be evaluated this year. So those are the things that board you will evaluate me on. And those measurable outcomes at the end is how you would know whether I've achieved those objectives.

[14118] Bowen Zhang: Hey, so I guess we'll just have a study session in December.

[14125] Terrence Grindall: Do we need to make a motion to bring this back to a session? No, we're not voting on this. Thank you.

[14132] Bowen Zhang: Moving on to new business, refinancing of Metro G-bound, watching the clock. I will move that we extend the meeting to 11 PM. May I get a second? I'll second. Seconded by Member Grundahl. Student Board Member, how do you vote?

[14151] SPEAKER_37: Yes.

[14152] Bowen Zhang: Member Marquez? Yes. Member Grundahl? Yes. Member Hill? Yes. My vote is yes. Motion passes unanimously. Meeting is extended to 11 p.m. Refinancing will measure debunked. Do we have any public speakers for this? Okay, Superintendent Triplett.

[14175] Mark Triplett: Yeah, I'll have Ms. Dela Cruz speak on this point.

[14181] Marie dela Cruz: Thank you, Dr. Triplett. We have an opportunity to refinance our Measure G bond, which was passed in 2011 because of the current economic situation and low interest rates. And our representative from KAN Public Finance is here to provide the information regarding the refinance. So if Mr. Bohm is available and ready. This information is, I mean, tonight it's information only. And if there's an interest with the board, we will bring it back again at the next meeting or the second meeting. in December for action.

[14236] SPEAKER_13: Thank you, Ms. Taylor-Cruz. Good evening, board. Can everyone hear me okay?

[14242] Marie dela Cruz: Yes. Oh, we're waiting for the presentation.

[14247] SPEAKER_13: Okay, let me know when it's pulled up and I can proceed. And I cannot see it on the screen in front of me. So I'm just going to wait for the go ahead that you guys can afford. OK. Perfect. Well, good evening again. As Ms. Taylor-Cruz introduced myself, my name is Blake Beam. I'm one of the principals at K&N Public Finance. We're a municipal advisory firm that assisted the district in the implementation or issuance phase for Measure G. It's been quite some time, about 10 years, since voters within the district authorized Measure G. And as such, there's been a period of time that all of those bonds have been outstanding and being repaid by property taxes. And as mentioned in the introduction, with our current low interest rate environment, we have been monitoring opportunities to refinance those outstanding bonds and save taxpayers money. And I think what we're here to share today is a current opportunity to generate some pretty considerable savings for taxpayers in the current interest rate environment. So I'll share details, happy to answer questions along the way or at the end. So please, I welcome any thoughts or questions. On the first page, we just summarized the district's outstanding general obligation debt. stemming from both the older 1997 Measure B, at which time voters authorized 66 million. There was four series of new money bonds subsequently sold. And then of course, the more recent Measure G, where voters authorized 63 million, which followed by three series of bonds were sold in accessing that authorization. The chart at the bottom our boxes represent those bonds when they were sold, the par amount or sale amount of bonds, and then those that have since been refinanced. Really all of those bonds stemming from the Measure B or the 97 authorization, all of the bonds that could be refinanced have. And so now all of the original Measure G bonds are still available, outstanding, and are to be refinanced, but I think we're approaching a time where perhaps that's something the board wants to consider. On page 2, it talks a little bit more about the market backdrop and really what brings us to this opportunity for refinancing the bonds. Really with it being a favorable interest rate environment, both in the treasury and municipal bond market, we're seeing the 10-year treasury benchmark rate being within 1% of its all-time historic lows, which we saw back in the third quarter of 2020. Rates have trended upward since then, albeit at a slow pace. Part of what has allowed rates to maintain at the low rates that we saw in 2020, all the way to our current timeframe, is a steady inflow of monies into the municipal bond market, with many investors viewing municipal bonds and government treasuries as a safe haven investment. And so while returns are low, there has been more demand for these safe haven investments then there has been supply. And so that supply-demand relationship, our offset of the supply-demand relationship, has really provided a compressed interest rate environment, allowing state and local governments to sale bond and or refinance bonds at a continued low interest rate. And so the graph or chart at the bottom of page two looks at the last 20 years, to see where we currently are at relative to where rates have been over that time frame and where the average benchmark rates for treasuries, both the 10-year and 20-year are at. And you can see, again, where we hit our lows in 2020, there's been some movement upwards as of recent, but we're still well below the historical averages that we see over this 20-year period. And so talking more specifically about the refinancing itself on page starting on slide three. So of the three series, the two earlier series sold from measure G, series A and B bonds are currently both strong refinancing or refunding candidates in the current interest rate environment and can generate an estimated taxpayer savings of roughly 4.89 million over the remaining repayment period. And the table in the middle of the page here really summarizes some of the highlights or financing statistics associated with these 2 refunding candidates. A couple numbers I'll point out. The Series A bonds, there's there would be a lot less bonds refinanced just given what's outstanding and what the existing rates are for those bonds. So we're currently looking at only refunding from the series A about 3.1 million. And so as such, the corresponding savings is correspondingly a bit lower. It's only 360,000. or 9.2% as it relates to present value savings or today's dollar savings relative to bonds refunded. Whereas the Series B bonds is comprised of a much larger amount of bonds that fall into the strong refinancing category. We would be looking to refinance about $25.5 million of the Series B bonds, which would generate a bulk of the savings that I had discussed earlier, about 4.5% 4.5 million or 12.17% of present value relative to bonds refinanced. At the bottom of the page, I wanted to talk about breakeven analysis. And the rationale for that is both of these refunding candidates would be considered advanced refunding, meaning that we're refunding them before their call date. At the time the bonds were sold, and this is very common for all school district and other local government geobond debt, the bonds are originally sold with a call protection period, which provides investors with some security that if they're going to invest in the district's bonds, that they'll be able to hold on to that investment for a certain period of time until a refinancing should occur or the bonds are paid off early. And so the standard call period is 10 years from the sale date. And that's very much consistent with Newark Unified's bonds that were sold for Measure G. And so the Series A bonds that were originally sold in 2012 are becoming callable next year, August 1, 2022. And the Series B bonds will not be callable until August 1 of 2024, as they were sold in 2014. Now, why are we bringing a refunding opportunity to the board today? Many school districts and state and local agencies will consider refunding on an advanced basis, meaning that you'll lock in interest rates in our current interest rate environment, where we are certain of where rates are, where the market is, and we can define a specific level of savings. The proceeds of the refunding bonds are ultimately deposited into an escrow account, which basically it's considered a defeasance, which means they're legally paid off and they're off the district's books. And in turn, the new refunding bonds are what taxpayers will be paying at a lower interest rate moving forward. And so during the period of time between the refinancing bonds are sold, and then actually paid off at their call date is considered an escrow period. Now that escrow period actually deteriorates some savings. And so the consideration or break-even analysis that we look at is all things remaining neutral, we can realize more savings, taxpayer savings, by waiting until the actual call date. However, if interest rates move upwards from where they're at today, we could actually save taxpayers less by waiting. So what is that breakeven? And so we looked at it for both the Series A bonds that we're considering to refinance and the Series B bonds. The Series A bonds have a breakeven of 38 basis points or 0.38%, meaning that if interest rates between now and next August go up by just 0.38%, we will generate less savings for district taxpayers at that time through a refinancing than now. And then along those same lines for the Series B bonds, the breakeven is higher. It's 120 basis points or 1.2%. But the waiting period is much longer. We would be waiting until August 1 of 2024. Now, there's no crystal ball. But I will say many market participants do feel like interest rates will continue trending upward. And I think that we're, we've seen that most recently in a recent Fed meeting where the Fed has announced that they will start waning from their quantitative easing policy, meaning that they will no longer be purchasing government securities as a means of compressing interest rates. So we will likely start seeing Fed rate and macro interest rates trending upward over the foreseeable future. And so when we look, consider those breakeven points relative to the 20 year look back that I just showed on the prior slide, I would say that it's well within the bandwidth that we see and perhaps even exceed the number of the breakeven should the district wait. So which is why staff and K&N as the district's municipal advisor for the Measure G program is bringing this to the board for consideration tonight. And so just continuing on with some additional highlights for the refinancing on slide four. I just want to go over a few more things in terms of savings and debt service comparisons. One of the ways that refinancings are most easily comparable to our day-to-day lives is comparing them to refinancing our home mortgages, taking advantage of the lower interest rates, where funds of existing debt are paid off with proceeds that are borrowed at lower rates. Now, the difference between refinancing home mortgage and refinancing municipal bonds sold by the school district is that we are not able to extend the term of repayment for the municipal bonds. The term will stay exactly the same for both respective series. We will not be prolonging the repayment for taxpayers. The interest rates of the Series A and B bonds range between about 4.1% and 5%. And we would be replacing that with debt that is sold at about 3, 3.1%. And that's where the interest rate savings is being generated that is currently estimated to accumulate to about $4.89 million for taxpayers. Now that's a pretty big number. And so we look at it as it relates to the average homeowner. So for the average homeowner, it's spread out about the entire community. And so the average homeowner would save about $6.52 per year. So a pretty modest number. It does accumulate to about $150 over the remaining life of the bond payments, which I think is a notable number for each family within the district. And I had mentioned on the prior slide a percentage, a present value percentage savings relative to bonds refunded. And the refunding is currently sitting at about 11.85%. So as a general rule of thumb within the finance industry, we typically would bring information to boards in this type of setting, in an informational report, for future consideration should savings equate to anywhere from 4 to 5%. And so with these bonds being well over 5%, this is a strong refunding for those reasons, and that's what we wanted to bring. And then the table at the right really shows where the existing debt service is. relative to what it would be post refunding and how those savings are generated each year through the life of the bonds. And then lastly, I'll just wrap up with a tentative refinancing timeline should the board decide to proceed. Following this informational report, we would work with legal counsel to draft an authorizing resolution and corresponding refinancing documents and bring those back to the board at the December 16th board meeting for consideration We would also be meeting with rating agencies for purposes of going to the market. We would meet with them in December with the plan of locking in interest rates and pricing the refunding bonds in January and closing by the end of January 2022. So with that, that concludes my report. I know there's a lot of detail. I wanted to provide a little explanation about refunding and advanced refunding. So hopefully I didn't get too much in the weeds there. I'm happy to answer any questions, should the board have any.

[15168] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Questions from the board? Member Hill?

[15174] Aiden Hill: Thank you, Mr. Bean. So three questions for you. So first is, as I was just kind of trying to eyeball your data. So it looks like we're talking about roughly $58 million in bonds that we're potentially refinancing. Is that correct?

[15191] SPEAKER_13: Correct. Yeah, it's about 28.68 million of bonds to be refunded amongst the A and B series.

[15201] Aiden Hill: OK, so you're saying that the amount that we would be doing is 26 million?

[15209] SPEAKER_13: It's 28.68 is the estimated refunding amount.

[15213] Aiden Hill: OK.

[15214] SPEAKER_13: However, the core amount of the new refunding bonds would be about $32 million.

[15220] Aiden Hill: OK, all right, I see. I added column three rather than seeing it was a total. OK, so it's 28 roughly prior to the refinancing. And then I'm imagining that you're proposing that you would help us for this. And so what's your fee for helping us go through the refinancing?

[15243] SPEAKER_13: The K&N fee is a fixed amount, as it was for the original sales from Measure G. And for this refinancing effort, we were proposing a flat fee of $65,000.

[15256] SPEAKER_13: There would be other fees associated with the bond sale, which would include bond and disclosure or legal counsel representation. We would have to pay the rating agencies for their credit rating assignments. There would be a bond underwriting fees and some other ancillary fees. The cumulative fees would be estimated to equate to something between the $150,000 to $200,000 range, or kind of standard amount for this particular size of refunding.

[15289] Aiden Hill: OK, great. And then the last question is Beam is an unusual last name. Do you happen to be related to Bob Beam, who lives out in Pleasanton?

[15300] SPEAKER_13: That's so funny you ask that. I do have a family member named Bob Beam that lives in the area.

[15310] Aiden Hill: Okay. All right. Okay.

[15312] SPEAKER_13: Thank you. I don't get to see him very often. I understand his son, Bruce Beam, just got married.

[15318] Aiden Hill: Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you.

[15323] SPEAKER_13: Yes. Thank you.

[15326] Bowen Zhang: Any other questions from the board?

[15328] Terrence Grindall: Yes. the costs that you were discussing at as a part of member hill's question not the one about the relative but um the um those are those are included in the discussion of of the break-even point right so those get folded into the bonds and so your break-even point includes those or is that on top of that that's correct so the savings number that i quoted of 4.89 million that is net of any and all cost

[15360] SPEAKER_13: break-even analysis that I shared with you before.

[15364] Terrence Grindall: So my last point is just to confirm that this would not extend the bonds, they would keep the same maturity date?

[15373] Bowen Zhang: Absolutely correct. That's been answered on email before this meeting.

[15379] Terrence Grindall: That's all I have.

[15382] Bowen Zhang: Member Marquez?

[15384] SPEAKER_40: No questions at this time.

[15387] Bowen Zhang: This is obviously discussion information. In the second meeting of December, we'll be voting on the final refinance document. Okay, any, yeah.

[15399] Aiden Hill: So, again, thank you for the great presentation, but just one confirmation. You know, given the amount of money, this would still be something that we would potentially want to put up for a competitive bid, right? And so, K&N could be one bidder, but others, you know, so that we make sure that we get the best price.

[15421] Marie dela Cruz: In terms of who does the refinancing?

[15423] SPEAKER_35: Correct.

[15423] Marie dela Cruz: Correct. K&N has been our financial advisor for Measure G. So it doesn't have to go through an RFP process, because they've been our advisor this whole time.

[15439] Aiden Hill: OK. But would it hurt? Would it hurt?

[15448] Marie dela Cruz: It would take more time. If time is of the essence, then it might. And the fees would come out of the bond anyway, so.

[15460] Terrence Grindall: Okay. I just wanted to note that I'm supportive of this effort with an eye particularly on those break-even points and trying to look at a crystal ball. So when this comes back, I would appreciate as much expertise being to us so we can, you know, take some of the clouds out of that crystal ball. So looking for expertise from our consultant to help us understand the risk of the interest rates not rising as much as they're expecting so that it wouldn't reach the breaking point.

[15501] Bowen Zhang: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you for the presentation. Have a great rest of the night.

[15507] Marie dela Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Bean.

[15509] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Moving on, 13.2, report on recent needle point bipolar ionization, error testing. Any public comment on this item?

[15524] SPEAKER_42: Yes, we have public comment from Eric Tam. You may begin.

[15526] SPEAKER_06: All right, let's jump right into it. 335 pages in three minutes is hard. Thank you to the FACS team. I saw some anomalies in your data set. Room B, page 141 to 145, and Room P, page 203 to 204, there are negative particulate values. Board, we only ask facts to seek half answers. Quote, objective was to determine if the use of the MBPI device produced harmful chemical by-products, end quote. Dr. Triplett, if you desired the full truth, you would have asked facts to answer, determine if the use of the MBPI devices cleans the air as promised by GPS, and if harmful chemical by-products are created during this process. Board, I hope my research can objectively answer that for you tonight. Does the FACTS report support MBPI improving air quality for acetone, ethanol, TFOX, butyldehyde, and ozone? The report's results were inconsistent and inconclusive. When MBPI was on, it did not show a determinate pattern of lower values. For a particular matter, MBPI demonstrated a lower minimum range value of 0.001. Unfortunately, this was also the room B with negative readings. On slide 20, even Vax depicts HEPA filter solution that covers the entire particulate matter size. The most interesting data from the report was the ion counts. Ion counts range from 1,300 to 3,400 ions per cubic centimeter, with only one anomaly, RUMF, at Chile, with 10,000 ions. On April 15th, I warned this board about mesuterin's half-truths. Board, take a guess on how many ions we need to get a 99% kill rate. In the August 20th white paper published by GPS and AVA for MBPI, they achieved a 99% surface kill rate by pumping an average of 27,000 ions per cc into a 160 square foot chamber for 30 minutes. GPS also recently changed their website data. They now tell different numbers. An air kill rate of 65% at 30 minutes, 98.3% at 60 minutes, using 18,000 ions per cc in a 160 square foot room. Notice some zeros missing? Let's say conservatively, a classroom is 640 square feet and gets 1,300 to 3,400 ion CC versus a 160 square foot test chamber getting 18,000 to 27,000 ions. Quick math, we're only getting one-tenth the ions, and our rooms are four times larger. Board, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think we got sold a lemon. In conclusion, I'd like to repeat what I said on April 15th, quote, from Ashway's website, NBPPI has less documented track record in regards to cleaning, this affecting large and fast volumes of moving air within HVAC systems. Consumers are encouraged to exercise caution to do their homework." End quote. Board, is this why NUSD broke the law so that they can hide things that shed light on their mistakes? Maybe we should have just done some homework instead of wasting half a million dollars. Thank you.

[15702] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Any other public commenter? Okay, bring it back to Superintendent Triplett.

[15708] Mark Triplett: Thank you president john board so as you recall what we brought these needlepoint bipolar ionization units to the board last year and both approved to install these. And then after they had been installed, there was a civil class action lawsuit that was brought against GPS and the other side of the country. And so in an abundance of caution, we decided to turn off the units and then do some testing to determine if, in fact, these units caused or emitted or caused the release of or creation of any harmful chemicals. So what we're bringing forth today is a very intensive report and study done to see if any harmful chemicals have been produced, and as we'll hear from the report. But in summary, what the folks have determined is that there does not appear to be any harmful chemicals being produced by these units. However, what we do not yet know is are the units actually creating the ions, the level of ions that they purport to create to kill the virus. So I think you'll hear more from the study, but essentially I think it is good news that we're learning that they are not, they're not creating harmful chemicals, but before we turn them, make any decisions to turn them back on, we'd really want to investigate whether they are doing the things that they to do, and we'd want to bring that back to the board and have the board make a decision about that. Our options moving forward are really going to be, do we turn the units back on, or do we do additional testing to determine if they are creating the ions we were told they were, and therefore, turn them back on if they are, or if they're not creating those ions, then we possibly look into our warranty and returning the units because they're not operating the way they were claimed to be operating. So this is the first stage, but we're really interested in having the board weigh in and give direction on this. Ms. Delacruz, do you want to add anything?

[15857] Marie dela Cruz: Yes, so tonight we have Mr. Gerard Beryl here from the Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, who was the Senior Project Manager for the testing that was conducted at our schools. And we also have Mr. Mark Williams, who's our attorney from F3, and as well as Mr. Ralph Caputo, who's our project manager, who's also overseeing the testing. So I'd like to call upon Mr. Mark Williams. And he'll do a brief summary, and then we'll have Mr. Gerard Beryl come up.

[15903] SPEAKER_28: Thank you for having me. Can you hear me? I would like to frame the issue before us, provide some context and some summary that amplifies the comments of the superintendent. As you know, and as was stated by the superintendent, there have been allegations that these units, one, emit harmful chemicals and two, are not effective. Now this is a matter of national importance and national inquiry. This district is not the only one that made the decision to buy these units. They are being used and hundreds of school districts hundreds of prisons airports across the country and federal facilities. The science behind both issues both efficacy and the emission of chemicals is new and evolving. We have more information about the emissions of the chemicals at this time. As the superintendent mentioned, out of an abundance of caution, we had the units tested and Mr. Barrow will be making a presentation on the results of that. But again, amplifying on the superintendent, I wanted to provide you with a summary of his findings. facts findings. We bring good news. The systems are not emitting to the extent we can tell dangerous chemicals. There are four results that we need to keep in mind as you go through Mr Barrel's analysis. One, many of the chemicals tested were below detectable levels. Two, It is unlikely that these units are increasing the levels of any of the chemicals of concern. Three, variations in chemical levels can be explained by the presence of other emitting assets within a classroom. So for example, hand sanitizers in a room will emit chemicals that are measurable. Four, In many instances, the amount of the chemicals inside the classroom that were measurable was less than the outside air. So in other words, if you think back on the crises we've had in mold in the past, the baseline comparison is how much mold is outside versus how much naturally occurring versus what's in the classroom. And in many instances, what was in the classroom was less than what was in the general environment. So in short, the report should bolster our confidence that the ionization units are safe. The second part of this inquiry is whether they're effective. And that analysis is still ongoing. There are ups and downs in the ionization levels in the classrooms. And that can be at relatively lower levels than the ones we would expect. Why is that? There could be a number of reasons for that. Their placement in the room, the fact that the ionization process is actually working And the whole purpose of what the ionization process is, if it's not been explained to you, it's called the snowball effect. The ion connects to the COVID virus, and it attracts other particles until it grows into a larger body, which the MIRV filters can then take away. So the fact that there's ionization levels that are decreasing over time may mean that it's working. And I would say that all of the studies that have questioned the effectiveness of the ionization process have not been in conjunction with the COVID virus. So the way I look at it, as your attorney, is this district, along with hundreds of other districts, including districts throughout the Bay Area that are using the devices out of an abundance of con of of caution and in conjunction with other filtration systems wanted to be extra safe. Take a belt and suspender approach for a national emergency. How well it works is something we will determine and if it doesn't work well the shifts from a public safety issue to warranties and contractual responsibilities of either the contractor or the supplier. So please keep that in mind. As your attorney, I'm no longer looking at this as a public safety matter, but as a warranty issue that the district has plenty of remedies to pursue. So thank you very much. And if there's any questions before I head back,

[16256] Bowen Zhang: Member Hill.

[16259] Aiden Hill: Thank you for your explanation. And then just a quick clarification, if you could remind us, because I can't remember. I don't believe that we ever actually turned the ionization units on, but maybe we did for a brief period of time. Can anybody refresh our memory?

[16278] Mark Triplett: Yes, we did turn them on for a brief period of time.

[16280] Aiden Hill: OK, thank you.

[16282] Marie dela Cruz: But it was only in the tested rooms. There were only selected rooms that were tested. So we turned them on and off to do the testing.

[16291] Mark Triplett: I think Member Hill is referring to prior to decommissioning them.

[16296] SPEAKER_28: There was a short window when they were on. Yeah. Thank you very much.

[16302] SPEAKER_35: Thank you.

[16304] Terrence Grindall: Member Goodell. Thank you. So you indicated the warranty, the warranty possibilities. Is that a hard case to make? Are we going to be fighting for years on that issue? Are they going to be able to defend themselves fairly well, claiming that there's other factors that are causing them to not seem effective?

[16331] SPEAKER_28: That's a very good question. I was thinking about that before I came up. You're right. It's a little more complicated than you might think because the science is so new on this. The way we would look at it is they made performance representations that are written. And if our testing shows that those performance representations were not met, then we would need to take a very close look at that. The other side of my portfolio is construction litigation, so I can give you some frank analysis on that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[16374] SPEAKER_35: OK.

[16382] Mark Triplett: Ms. Delacruz, you want to introduce the chart?

[16388] Kat Jones: Here we go. And I'll put the presentation up.

[16397] SPEAKER_42: This one is which one?

[16399] Marie dela Cruz: This is for the FACS presentation. test results. Are you able to see from there? I'd like to introduce Mr. Gerard Beryl. He's the Senior Project Manager for Forensic Analytical Consulting Services. He is the lead on the testing and the creation of the final report.

[16433] Bowen Zhang: So Mr. Beryl, not to be rude, but Our board meeting does have a hard stop at 11 p.m., so. And generally, we leave some time for the board to deliberate.

[16444] SPEAKER_31: I will honor that, not a problem. Good evening, everyone. First of all, before I get into the presentation, I want to give you a little information about Forensic Analytical and then a little bit about myself. Forensic Analytical is a 35-year-old environmental health and safety company. Our specialties are diverse. We handle hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead-based paint and PCBs and caulking. We are involved in indoor air quality investigations, construction site hazards, on and on it goes, subsurface hazards as well. So anything dealing with environmental health issues, we are consultants to that. My expertise is in industrial hygiene. I've been in the health and safety business for about 43 years, 32 years as a certified industrial hygienist. My job basically is to anticipate, recognize, evaluate, and control environmental hazards in various settings. So that's our mission. We are basically a branch of public health. So I'm going to get right into it. And let's see, is the point this way? Yes. Okay. So first of all, our scope of work, we were not there to evaluate the performance of the system in terms of COVID. Our job was to determine if there were any occupational or any chemical hazards resulting from the usage of these machines. So we focused on several chemicals which were basically in the lawsuit. The first group were volatile organic compounds. Next was ozone and uride. And finally, particulate matter. And I'll discuss all those in depth. So the testing. Four schools, two per day over a weekend, Saturday and Sunday. We picked four classrooms per campus. Two classrooms would be operated with the units off, two with the units on. And then we used an outdoor controlled sample as well. The sample duration was seven to eight hours, basically trying to mimic a school day. Methods. So total volatile organic compounds, and I don't have a pointer here, so. So the methodologies we use are very, very sensitive. The big silver unit, or it looks like a globe, is called a summa canister. Attached to that are some other air sampling devices for butyroaldehyde and ozone. And then we have another device for measuring particulate matter. There's a filter on there which allows us to measure particles 2.5 microns and less in diameter. So those are sample methodologies. These are very, very sensitive methodologies, OK? Much more sensitive than I would use typically, say, in an occupational setting. So we'll get right to the results. Volatile organic compounds, indoor and outdoor samples. First of all, ethyl acetate, methylene chloride, and toluene, which we identified at a previous testing, came back non-detect in this particular set of tests in all four schools. We did detect acetone, ethanol, and TVOCs. So we'll talk about each one of these detected compounds. So a little context. We don't live in a chemical-free world. We are constantly exposed to various substances at low levels, albeit, but we are constantly exposed. There's no such thing as a chemical-free environment. So acetone, for example, common themes, nail polish remover, Some of the Sharpies may have acetones. And of course, if you use Gugon, that's in there as well. These indoor air concentrations are usually going to be higher than outdoor air concentrations because we have sources inside our buildings, homes, workplaces, and schools. But acetone is regarded as a very low toxicity chemical. It's not like you're dealing with formaldehyde, for example. So our results. Indoor acetone levels, no surprise. were mostly higher than outdoor concentrations. But we got mixed results at each of the schools. So for example, at Coyote Hills, it didn't matter if the MPBPI was on or off. The levels were all similar. And for the other three schools, again, mixed results. In some of the schools, we had similar maximum concentrations in both rooms, MPBPI, Another room where it was inoperative. So it didn't seem to make a difference. And then we found another room where we had lower concentrations of acetone compared with the inoperative room. So all over the place. But basically, our conclusion is that the effects were mostly due to the presence of acetone sources in classrooms. I will add that we did not do an inventory of the chemicals in the classrooms. And the reason we didn't do that is because as human beings, we are emitting volatile organic compounds and acetone and other substances. And due to the sensitivity of those methods, we decide the best course of action would be to stay out of those rooms as much as possible so that we would not interfere with the results just by being present in the room. So again, It's basically inconsistent results, not showing any alarming levels of acetone whatsoever. Ethanol, another common compound. It's a gasoline additive. Just go to any of your filling stations, you'll see that. It's now being used as a biofuel. And of course, we have it in booze, and we have lots of it in our settings. The level of acetone in our general atmosphere has increased due to usage in gasoline. And of course, in the indoor environment, the usage of ethanol as a disinfectant has dramatically raised ethanol levels in classrooms and other settings, just as a response to the pandemic. So ethanol levels in general, they're all across the board. 24 micrograms to about 6.2 milligrams per cubic meter. Indoor concentration all exceed outdoor concentration. Again, no surprise. But when we looked at the schools, individual classrooms, again, at Coyote Hills, it didn't seem to matter if you had the units on or off. We still had similar ethanol concentrations. And then a mixed bag in terms of the results in the other classrooms. So we had the highest concentration in a room with the unit operative and in a room with the unit inoperative. And then the lowest concentration was in another room. where the units were operative, another one was inoperative. It's, again, inconsistent results, but basically not showing any pattern that indicates that the NPPIs are causing an increase in the levels of ethanol. So in terms of sources, our findings that the ethanol that we measured was mostly due to classroom sources. is ethanol dispensers and hand sanitizers in every classroom that we went into, and the quantity of these varied by different classroom and by campus. But basically, our findings are that there's no relationship between usage of MPPIs and acetone levels, excuse me, ethanol levels. Next, total volatile organic compounds. Again, we're surrounded in a sea of these things. There's major sources outdoors and indoors. Every environment that a human being is in has volatile organic compounds. And as usual, levels inside of total volatile organic compounds are always higher than the outside for the most part. Again, because we have so many sources. That slide came out a little cuckoo. But again, mixed results for the TVOCs, highs and lows, indoor concentrations measured with the MPPI inoperative. I can't read the rest of it because the slide got a little bit compressed there.

[16999] SPEAKER_42: I can pull up the slide directly from the presentation. Yeah, that's a different format.

[17011] SPEAKER_31: Step over to reading glasses, which will steam up due to the mask. You know, just go ahead.

[17024] SPEAKER_35: Sure.

[17025] SPEAKER_31: Yeah.

[17033] SPEAKER_42: There you go. OK. And come over. Are you like 13?

[17041] SPEAKER_31: There we go, okay. That's fine, okay. Yeah, so again, it's, we're seeing this same pattern again where there's no consistency with TVOC levels regardless of the MPPI being off or on. There's no pattern which indicates that the TVOCs are being amplified by the usage of the MPPIs. Again, indoor concentrations were varied, inconsistent across four campuses. I'm not going to read the slides to you. But basically, our conclusion was that units are not causing an increase or decrease in TVOCs in classrooms. Butyraldehyde. Butyraldehyde was selected because that was one of the chemicals mentioned in the lawsuit. And also, I believe, was in the paper by Zhang. The sources, surprisingly, there's a lot of sources that you don't think about. Outdoor concentrations, 22.9 to 53. Fairly low toxicity product unless you're inhaling it, which I wouldn't recommend long term. That's our measurement device for butyride. It's called a vapor diffusion badge. Basically, indoor concentration of butyride, aldehyde were all below detectable limits. Indoor concentrations were the detectable limits. We did measure outside, but basically the story is you're not detecting any butyl aldehyde being generated or amplified as a result of using the NPBPI. Hard to say with the mask on. Ozone. Here I'm talking about ground level ozone, not the ozone that protects us from UV or tries to. It is the main green smog. Basically, ozones form at ground level due to the interaction of sunlight, volatile organic compounds, and the oxides, nitrogen, which are produced by high heat source like combustions and engines and such, trucks, et cetera. Ozone is a low solubility gas, which means it can get into your lungs. It doesn't cause issues right away, but if you continue exposure, you can get pulmonary edema, basically. So at risk population, children with asthma and people who are active outdoors and with some vitamin deficiency. So here's another type of monitor we use for ozone. Again, all indoor ozone concentrations were below detectable limit, which is pretty remarkable. So, and we did have some ozone outside. But again, the results indicate that the usage of these devices were not producing ozone gas, which would, of all these things, would probably be the most largest, biggest concern with respect to the health of students. Particulate matter, which is a fancy way of saying dust. And as in all environments, it's everywhere. We can't see dust in this room. It's present. And there are multiple sources. We looked at particle sizes 2.5 microns and less in size. That's invisible to the naked eye. It's hard to see here, but if you get 2.5 is going to be less than, say, mole scores in air in terms of diameter. Again, very, very small. You may be able to see it. if you had a sunlight coming through and you could see the dust particles, the sun basically reflecting off those dust particles, that's called the Tyndall effect. But these particles can get deep into the lungs and cause, you know, various types of respiratory problems. Again, mixed bag of results here. PM 2.5 concentrations were lower than outdoor concentrations, which was very remarkable. which means the classrooms are pretty clean. At Coyote Hills, concentration for the unit operative, one to orders of magnitude below outdoor concentration. But you had some opposite results in other rooms. Again, no consistent pattern that showed that the use of these systems were causing an increase in particulate level. So our findings basically, the concentrations of dust with the NPPPI on or off were in a similar range. That is a remarkable finding, which tells me not much is happening in terms of these humans generating dust. So our conclusion, these humans are not causing an increase in particles. So getting back to our first slide, or second slide to save our questions, I'll just summarize it because it's all the same answer. Basically, it's unlikely that usage of the NPBPI is causing an increase in particulate levels, butyraldehyde, ozone, or the targeted VOCs. And thank you. Any questions?

[17389] Bowen Zhang: Any questions from the board?

[17395] Terrence Grindall: I think just a comment. Just to go back to what you first stated, you weren't looking at whether they were effective or not. You were just finding out whether they were causing these dangerous chemicals. Is that correct?

[17409] SPEAKER_31: I wouldn't use the word dangerous chemicals. I wouldn't use the adjective. But our job basically was to determine if the usage of the NPP NPBPI was causing an increase in the concentration of some of these chemicals. So we were not there to evaluate whether or not these units were effective in basically handling COVID. That's not our scope of work.

[17437] Terrence Grindall: I understand. I'm sorry for my unclear language, but that's what I meant to clarify. So thank you. You're welcome.

[17448] Bowen Zhang: So I have a comment on the result on the acetone. It really feels like that might be the only thing that's sort of on the fence or something because it's either comfortable or the one that's operative does have higher level of acetone at a junior high, right? Let me go back. I think that's probably at best inconsistent.

[17469] SPEAKER_31: Yes, there's a lot of inconsistency and when we make a judgment or whether or not something is probable or likely, we're looking for a consistency across the board. Now, admittedly, this is, you know, this is a relatively small sample set, but nothing struck us as indicating that, you know, we're getting some levels which are, first of all, context. None of these levels are coming close to We're talking micrograms per million or part per billion. These are extremely low concentrations. So even in those situations where we did have a situation where MPPI appears to be increased acetone concentrations, these numbers are, you know, they are not a health concern at all.

[17523] Bowen Zhang: Also, I guess the other thing is you're proving that these units are not producing hazardous chemicals. I guess in some way this is a high burden of proof that you have to have across the board overwhelming and compelling consistency to actually prove that they are indeed producing harmful chemical byproducts, right? Is it not fair to say that the burden of proof is actually pretty high? It's almost like you're trying to convict somebody in a court, but the evidence has to be very overwhelming and compelling Other than that, if you cannot prove that beyond reasonable doubt, then you can't really say they're producing hazardous chemical byproduct.

[17566] SPEAKER_31: I'd say based on this study, we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that these NPBPI units are causing increases in the chemicals of concern.

[17580] SPEAKER_35: Okay.

[17580] SPEAKER_31: But, you know, you can have more of a study.

[17585] Bowen Zhang: But would you say to do so, it's a high burden to prove this?

[17592] SPEAKER_31: Yeah. I mean, look, it's like until you do, you can always do another study to increase your denominator. And, you know, the bigger the denominator, yeah, the more reliable your data is going to be, of course.

[17613] Bowen Zhang: Any other comments and questions from the board?

[17618] Terrence Grindall: Thank you very much.

[17620] Bowen Zhang: Thank you, Mr. Barrow. By the way, I have one more. How much does that cost the district to run this analysis?

[17629] SPEAKER_37: Good point.

[17631] SPEAKER_31: I believe our fee was $56,000, which we've gone over tonight.

[17638] Marie dela Cruz: How much is it? $56,000? $56,000.

[17645] Bowen Zhang: OK. Thank you, Mr. Gerard Barrow. Have a great rest of the evening.

[17651] SPEAKER_37: Thank you.

[17654] Bowen Zhang: Moving on. Moving on to a consent calendar, personnel items, personnel report. I'm sorry. Yeah.

[17672] SPEAKER_42: We do have public comment. Just one second. 15.2, 15.4.

[17681] Bowen Zhang: Still at 14.2. Sorry, I got ahead of myself. May I get a motion? I got a motion to ratify the personnel report.

[17690] Terrence Grindall: So moved.

[17692] Bowen Zhang: Motion made by Member Grindel. Anybody wants to second? Second. Seconded by Member Marquez. Member Marquez, how do you vote?

[17700] Olivia Rangel: Yes.

[17702] Bowen Zhang: Member Grindel? Yes. Member Hill? Yes. My vote is yes. Motion carries with four ayes. Student board member doesn't vote on personnel issue. Member Nguyen is absent. And item 15, consent agenda, non-personnel items. We're polling 15.2 and 15.4. Any other board member want to pull other items? Any board member wants to make a motion to approve the rest of the consent calendar?

[17744] SPEAKER_40: I move that we go ahead and approve the rest of the agenda.

[17748] Bowen Zhang: I guess our normal convention is to enumerate these items, I guess. So this is a motion to approve 15.3, change order number two and 15.5 minutes of the November 4th board meeting. Correct. Motion made by member Marcus. Anybody wants to second? I'll second. Seconded by member Grindel. Student board member, how do you vote?

[17775] SPEAKER_37: Yes.

[17777] Bowen Zhang: Member Marcus? Yes. Member Grindel? Yes. Member Hill? Yes. My vote is this. Motion carries. Unanimously, Member Nguyen is absent. 15.2, Curriculum Associates. We do have a public commenter, Ms. Cindy Parks.

[17803] Cindy Parks: The background for this item says this is the sixth year of the district's implementation of iReady and the program serves as a part of the district's comprehensive assessment program. Since this is the sixth year, why is this purchase just coming to you now, three months into the school year? Clearly, well after the teachers have utilized the program to assess their students and to prepare for parent-teacher conferences. As I have expressed previously, I am extremely concerned about the overall internal controls regarding contracts. In this instance, staff is asking the board to approve the purchase of iReady services for the attached September 7th quote in the amount of $126,552. Materials and services in amounts beyond those authorized by BP3312 must be approved by the board before the purchase is issued. A payment for iReady was issued on September 2nd and was approved in the October warrants for $4,700. How could that have happened when the attached quote is dated September 7th, five days after the payment was issued, and without a written and signed quote or contract, which would be necessary for a purchase order to be generated? What did the business office staff use to verify the authorization for the $4,700 September 2nd payment? Let me repeat in a more concise manner. Based on what the public can see, the process was on September 2nd, a $4,700 payment was issued. On September 7th, a written price code was received from the vendor. On November 18th, the staff is seeking board approval. I don't know exactly when the purchase order was prepared. Do you think this follows proper process, issuing the check before the written price code is received, and then the purchase order doesn't come to you, the board, for another 10 weeks? Where is the purchase order that the business office used to verify the $4,700? Was it authorized payment? who authorized the purchase, and who prepared the payment. I will bet next month we will see there are already other payments made this month. At the last meeting, when I questioned the contracts which expired June 30, 2021, versus the July 6, 2021 purchase order, President John thought it had to do with the software. However, Ms.dela Cruz explained the purchase order wasn't generated in July, They got the invoice, which is why they made the first quarter report. So let me understand the 2021 contract is signed several months earlier. The terms have ended and the district receives the invoice and prompts the generation of a purchase order authorizing the insurance payment, which is now in the next fiscal year. Can you understand my concern and keep bringing these issues to your attention? You have a responsibility to ensure the fiscal stability of the district, and that starts with proper accounting process. Thank you.

[17992] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. Any questions from the board? So actually, I do want to follow up on this, because I know we are continuously using iReady services. On this item, it does feel like if the purchase is done a couple of months ago, then this probably should have arrived to the board several months earlier. Or again, this has to do with anything related to our software or something?

[18018] Mark Triplett: I believe Ms. Pierce-Davis can explain a little bit more about this purchase.

[18029] Nicole Pierce-Davis: So it's my understanding, again, speaking with Mr. Dulwich, that we did discuss whether or not we wanted to expand this program down to our lower grades. And so there was discussion because, again, we didn't want to make that decision by ourselves. I do know that we have not paid iReady because we have an existing relationship with them. They were sort of fronting the licensure until we brought that to them. So I just want to make it clear that we were not sort of paying this ahead of time and then coming and bringing this later, that is not what happened. So we've been sort of utilizing the program because we have an existing relationship with them over time.

[18071] Bowen Zhang: So I got, is this $126,000 the payment for the expansion?

[18077] Nicole Pierce-Davis: No, this is the total contract altogether, but it does include an expanded down through K1 and 2 grades as well.

[18086] Bowen Zhang: Like, if we're paying for this year's contract, is this, is the purchase really done recently, or is it done a couple months ago?

[18094] Nicole Pierce-Davis: No, it is being done now.

[18096] Bowen Zhang: Okay.

[18096] Nicole Pierce-Davis: But because we've had an existing relationship.

[18099] Bowen Zhang: Oh, I see. So what you were saying, in the first couple of months, we're using it for free. Basically, yes. Okay, I see.

[18105] Nicole Pierce-Davis: That's exactly, I should have said that, thank you. Okay.

[18108] Bowen Zhang: Any other questions before we move on?

[18110] Terrence Grindall: They were, they were providing the service in hopes of payment. that rather than for free?

[18116] Nicole Pierce-Davis: Absolutely, but we would not have had we said, sorry, we're not going with iReady moving forward, we would not have owed any money.

[18125] Terrence Grindall: I understand.

[18129] SPEAKER_40: The one thing I did want to remember Marcus. Yes, thank you for that for the acknowledgement. My dimension as I was looking at the quote, I noticed that the validity was through the end of the year with this. So they were brave. mentioning what you said in hopes that this would be closed by and if not then would I assume that because with the cost increase it would have been different after the beginning of the year, correct?

[18151] Bowen Zhang: Thank you. So to follow up, given this is an expansion So this is, again, a one-year contract, right? Next year we'll be voting on this again. So I guess, even though I see the fiscal amount, so what is the, given this is expansion, I guess this is more expensive than a prior year, right? What is the additional amount we're paying in addition to the regular contract?

[18176] Nicole Pierce-Davis: I do not have the exact numbers in front of me, but if I remember correctly, it's around $80,000, what we were doing before. So we've doubled the grades, we've doubled the cost.

[18186] Bowen Zhang: Again... Well, not necessarily double the cost. We only increased by 50%, I guess. Member Grindell?

[18195] Terrence Grindall: I was going to say, since we only have three minutes left, I'd go ahead and move approval.

[18201] Bowen Zhang: Motion made by Member Grindell to approve the purchase of Curriculum Associates LLC for iReady Services. Anybody wants to second?

[18213] SPEAKER_37: Second.

[18214] Bowen Zhang: Seconded by student board member. Student board member, how do you vote?

[18218] SPEAKER_37: Yes.

[18221] Bowen Zhang: Member Grindel, how do you vote? Yes. Member Marcus, how do you vote? Yes. Member Hill, how do you vote? No. My vote is yes, so motion carries with three ayes. Member Hill voted no. Can you explain the reason?

[18237] Aiden Hill: Yeah, as mentioned before, I mean by that by the public speaker and then also we the board have had a letter from a former board member an email from a former board member Nancy Thomas. I have concerns around how we're handling contracts and procurement and I don't think that the proper internal controls are in place and I would like to make a request, we're almost out of time, but I would like to make a request that we have our audit manager come to the next meeting to discuss, because I believe that there are potential violations of internal controls and issues with delegation of authority.

[18274] Bowen Zhang: So we have, after voting for this item, we have less than a minute left, so I would announce the adjournment of the meeting, because I don't think we have time to.

[18284] Mark Triplett: President Chen, do you want to discuss

[18287] Bowen Zhang: I mean, given we will need to call for a special meeting to finish the rest of the item, I guess that can be agenda on that item. Anyway, meeting is adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

1. CALL TO ORDER

Virtual Meeting Practices and Information

Type Information, Procedural VIRTUAL MEETING INFORMATION The district boardroom will be closed to the public, and in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20, Board meetings will be held "virtually" until further notice. These meetings will be accessible to the public by internet or telephone. No physical meeting place will be provided. The Governor of California's Executive Order N-29-20 of March 17th, 2020.

OBSERVE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING Members of the public may observe the meeting via the NUSD YouTube Channel, and public comments will be accepted via a Zoom Webinar with advance notice requested by email. Spanish translation will be available via Zoom.

PUBLIC COMMENT The public will have the opportunity to address the Board of Education regarding non-agendized matters and agendized items with a LIVE comment or a WRITTEN comment by submitting a speaking card via email at PUBLICCOMMENT@newarkunified.org. Live comments will be transmitted via Zoom with audio-only.

Roll Call

Type Procedural TRUSTEES President Bowen Zhang Vice President/Clerk Phuong Nguyen Member Elisa Martinez Member Terrence Grindall Member Aiden Hill

STUDENT BOARD MEMBER

Member Estaina Resendiz Ortiz

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Approval of the Agenda

Type Action

Recommended It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the agenda for this meeting. Action PURPOSE: Members of the Governance Team may request that the agenda be amended or approved as presented.

Motion & Voting It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the agenda for this meeting.

Motion by Alicia Marquez, second by Bowen Zhang.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Bowen Zhang, Terrence Grindall, Aiden Hill, Alicia Marquez
Not Present at Vote: Estaina Resendiz-Ortiz

3. CLOSED SESSION

Public Comment on Closed Session Items

Type Information PURPOSE: The Board of Education encourages the community's participation in its deliberations and has tried to make it convenient to express their views to the Board. If a constituent wishes to address the Board on any agenda item, please fill out a virtual speaker card via email at PUBLICCOMMENT@newarkunified.org.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE/DISMISSAL/RELEASE (Gov. Code, � 54957, subd. (b)(1))

Type Action, Information, Procedural PURPOSE: Information will be provided by the Superintendent and Executive Director of Human Resources.

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code, � 54957.6, subd. (a): Employee Organizations - NTA and CSEA

Type Action, Information, Procedural PURPOSE: Information may be provided by the agency negotiator, Executive Director of Human Resources. Assistance from the legal firm Dannis, Woliver, Kelley, Attorneys at Law may be provided.

The employee organizations include NTA & CSEA.

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code, � 54957.6, subd. (a)): Employee Group - NEWMA, Unrepresented Supervisors, and Contracted Management

Type Action, Information, Procedural PURPOSE: Information may be provided by the agency negotiator, the Executive Director of Human Resources, and the Superintendent. Assistance from legal firm Dannis, Woliver, Kelley, Attorneys at Law may be provided.

The employee organizations include NEWMA, Unrepresented Supervisors, and Contracted Management

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL � ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, � 54956.9, subd. (d)[(2) or (3)]

Type Action, Information, Procedural PURPOSE: Information may be provided regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One case

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL � EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code, � 54956.9, subd. (d)(1))

Type Action, Information, Procedural PURPOSE: To discuss the following case(s): Christine Clinton v. Newark Unified School District: HG21103262

STUDENT EXPULSION (Ed. Code, � 48918)

Type Information, Procedural PURPOSE:

For the Board to review the Stipulation Expulsion Agreement.

BACKGROUND:

A Stipulation Expulsion Agreement meeting was held on November 2, 2021. A Stipulation Expulsion Meeting was conducted in accordance with Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 5144.1 and, if applicable, 5144.2 for students with disabilities. The administration asks for approval of the recommendation for Case# e2122-08. (Ed Code. � 48918).

Recess to Closed Session

Type Procedural PURPOSE: The Board will recess to Closed Session, and reconvene to Open Session on or about 7:00 p.m.

4. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION

Pledge of Allegiance

Type Procedural PURPOSE: The Governance Team will recite the Pledge of Allegiance

5. REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS

Report of Closed Session Actions

Type Action, Procedural PURPOSE: If available, a report of the closed session will be provided by the Board President.

6. EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS

Employee Organizations

Type Information PURPOSE:

At regular Board meetings, a single spokesperson of each recognized employee organization (NTA, CSEA, NEWMA) may make a brief presentation.

BACKGROUND: Discussion items are limited to updates, celebrations, and upcoming events.

1. NTA: Sean Abruzzi

2. CSEA: Sue Eustice

3. NEWMA: Vicenta Ditto

7. RECOGNITIONS AND CELEBRATIONS

School Spotlight: Birch Grove Intermediate

Type Information PURPOSE:

The School Spotlight gives the Board of Education and the public an opportunity to hear the highlights, achievements, and initiatives at each school directly from the principals.

BACKGROUND:

The presentation and information will be provided by the Birch Grove Intermediate Principal, Olivia Wong.

File Attachments BGI Spotlight - 2021_22.pdf (6,100 KB)

8. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items

Type Procedural PURPOSE: The Board of Education encourages the community's participation in its deliberations and has tried to make it convenient to express their views to the Board.

BACKGROUND: Please see the instructions on the link below for public comment information on non-agenda items and agenda items.

http://go.boarddocs.com/ca/nusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=C4Q2D4019F40

9. SUPERINTENDENT REPORT

Superintendent Report

Type Information PURPOSE: The superintendent will provide the Board of Education with district information, updates, news, or anything in the jurisdiction of the board or the superintendent.

BACKGROUND: The presentation and information will be provided by the Superintendent

10. STAFF REPORT

Update on ForeFront Power Solar Projects at Newark Memorial High School and Newark Jr High School

Type Discussion, Information PURPOSE: To provide the Board with an update on the progress of the solar projects at Newark Memorial High School and Newark Jr High School.

BACKGROUND: Updates on the Solar Project have been provided to the Board on March 18, 2021 and August 5, 2021. At the November 4, 2021 Board meeting, Member Nguyen requested staff to provide another update on the solar project.

On November 7, 2019, the Board approved the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Newark Unified School District & ForeFront Power for solar facilities and battery energy storage systems at Newark Memorial High School and Newark Junior High School including the option for the district to incorporate costs such as, but not limited to, inspector fees, DSA fees, PG&E upgrades, and ADA compliance requirements, currently estimated at $100,000 for both sites.

On December 3, 2020 the Board approved Forefront Power to upgrade the battery at Newark Memorial High School from a 2- Hour to a 4-Hour to increase savings and the energy storage capacity.

ForeFront Power gave presentations to the Board on May 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019. Inspector fees (estimated cost $20,000 per site), DSA fees, PG&E upgrades and ADA compliance upgrades (estimated cost if needed is $30,000 per site) are the district's upfront costs; however, the PPA will incorporate these costs and the district will be reimbursed or ForeFront will pay for them directly. ForeFront Power worked with NUSD in 2017 to submit interconnection applications to get the District grandfathered on lucrative Time of Use rates. SPURR, the Joint Powers Authority, ran a statewide RFP (Request for Proposal) process in 2017 for solar and storage systems that K12 Districts can "piggyback" off to procure solar facilities, storage systems, and EVCS (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations). Eight companies submitted proposals and the RFP was awarded to ForeFront Power. ForeFront Power has updated the numbers since 2017 and presented a district wide solution in the Board Study Session on August 1, 2019. After careful consideration, the District determined that as Phase I of this project, Newark Memorial High School and Newark Junior High School would be the best locations to initially install solar facilities to start this project. Initial estimates indicated that the District could save $145K (25%) in year 1, and $4.6 million over 20 years with this solar solution, using very conservative assumptions. Phase II of this project would potentially include other school locations in the future. The PPA includes a buyout option after year 5. Other Districts who have partnered with ForeFront Power through the use of the SPURR REAP (Renewable Energy Aggregated Procurement) RFP include: Central USD (in Fresno) Stockton USD Fresno USD (4th largest school district in the state) Shasta Union High School District Paso Robles JUSD South Monterey County JUHSD Bakersfield CSD

             Sierra CCD
             State Center CCD
             Kings Canyon USD

File Attachments Newark USD Solar Update - Board 2021.11.18v3.pdf (3,115 KB)

Feasibility Study for New School in the Sanctuary Development (Area 3)

Type Discussion, Information PURPOSE: To review the New School Area 3 Feasibility Study report from SchoolWorks, Inc. This is a feasibility study for building a new school on land provided by the developer in the Sanctuary development located in the City of Newark's Area 3. The 2021/22 Demographics and Enrollment Projections report for NUSD is also provided for reference.

BACKGROUND: At the May 6, 2021, Board meeting, the Board requested that staff begins to review the feasibility of building a new school in the Sanctuary development located in the City of Newark's Area 3.

On June 17, 2021, the Board approved the proposal from SchoolWorks, Inc to provide services for a feasibility study of building a new school in the Sanctuary development located in the City of Newark's Area 3.

On April 9, 2015, a Development Agreement between the City of Newark and Newark Partners, LLC Developer was executed.

As part of this agreement, the City of Newark required the dedication of 6 acres of land to the City for use as a school site. In addition, there is to be an adjacent 3-acre park that would be for joint City/School use.

As per the provisions of the Development Agreement, an elementary school must begin construction on the site within 7 years of the first building permit granted for the Sanctuary (Area 3) development. If school construction does not take place by that time, the property would revert to the developer.

The first building permit was granted on August 8, 2018. Therefore, school construction would need to commence by August 7, 2025.

File Attachments Presentation_New School Area 3 Feasibility Study Nov 2021.pdf (842 KB) NUSD Demographics and Enrollment Projections 2021.pdf (3,692 KB) Newark New School Feasibility Study-a.pdf (1,711 KB)

Facilities Projects Update

Type Discussion, Information PURPOSE: RGM Kramer, the district's Bond Project Manager, and the CBO will provide an update on the facilities projects taking place across the district.

BACKGROUND: RGM Kramer will present an update on current projects in planning and construction with an emphasis on the Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning (HVAC) and Irrigation & Landscaping Project construction schedules.

File Attachments NUSD Facilities Update 11 18 21 Final Revised 1.pdf (1,666 KB)

History Adoption Process

Type Information PURPOSE:

The History Adoption Committee comprises K-12 staff as well as site and district administrators in order to review, pilot, and recommend History textbooks and curriculum for adoption, grades K-12. A public viewing of piloted materials will occur in February 2022 in order for the History Adoption Committee to make a final recommendation to the Board of Education for adoption for the 2022-23 school year. The Committee will adhere to a detailed process and timeline, including the use of an evaluation rubric with staff input, that is aligned with criteria outlined in the history-social science framework established by the California Department of Education.

BACKGROUND:

The subjects of English-Language Arts, Science, and Mathematics have been the most recently adopted curriculums within Newark Unified School District. In fact, the last time History curriculum was formally adopted in Newark Unified was in 2006. As a result, staff and students have expressed widespread interest in adopting a new History curriculum grades K-12 that will include a state-adopted program and is aligned with the current California history-social science framework. Therefore, Ed Services has convened a History Adoption Committee during the 2021-22 school year in order to review and pilot publisher materials and, ultimately, make a recommendation to the Board of Education to adopt a new History curriculum for the 2022-23 school year.

File Attachments History Adoption Process 11.18.21.pdf (1,655 KB)

11. STUDENT EXPULSION

Expulsion Stipulation for e2122-08

Type Action

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education approves the Expulsion Stipulation. Action PURPOSE:

For the Board to review the Stipulation Expulsion Agreement.

BACKGROUND:

A Stipulation Expulsion Agreement meeting was held on November 2, 2021. A Stipulation Expulsion Meeting was conducted in accordance with Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 5144.1 and, if applicable, 5144.2 for students with disabilities. The administration asks for approval of the recommendation for Case# e2122-08. (Ed Code. � 48918).

Motion & Voting The recommendation is that the Board of Education approves the Expulsion Stipulation.

Motion by Bowen Zhang, second by Terrence Grindall.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Bowen Zhang, Terrence Grindall, Aiden Hill, Alicia Marquez
Abstain: Estaina Resendiz-Ortiz

12. OLD BUSINESS

2021-22 District Goals and Superintendent Objectives

Type Action, Discussion, Information

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education approves the 2021-22 District Goals and Action Superintendent Objectives as articulated in the NUSD Accountability Framework for Implementation of Initiatives PURPOSE:

For the board to review and approve the district goals and superintendent objectives as articulated in the NUSD Accountability Framework for Implementation of Initiatives.

BACKGROUND:

"Each year of the agreement, the Board and the Superintendent shall establish by mutual agreement the Superintendent's performance and benchmarks for the next school year." (Superintendent Contract)

At the October 27 Board meeting, the Board reviewed the prior year's goal and objectives and identified the areas of focus which the District should either start, stop, or continue for the 2021-2022 school year. The Board provided valuable feedback and input into the direction for this current school year. Per the direction of the Board, the Superintendent created the document titled, "NUSD Accountability Framework for Implementation of Initiatives," which provides a SMARTE goal accountability framework in order to track the level of implementation and impact of desired outcomes. During the school year, there are thousands of actions the administration takes in order to service our students and families. The purpose of this document is to name the top priority areas for the year, in order to collectively stay focused on those areas with the highest leverage potential and the greatest academic return on investment for our students, families, and district.

File Attachments Cover Letter to Board_ 2021-2022 District Goals & Superintendent Objectives.pdf (184 KB) District Goal-Setting Process 2021-22.pdf (418 KB) NUSD Accountability Framework for Implementation of Initiatives - NUSD Goals & Objectives (1).pdf (68 KB)

13. NEW BUSINESS

Refinancing of Measure G Bond

Type Discussion, Information

PURPOSE: In the current low-interest rate environment, there is an opportunity to refinance a portion of the District's outstanding General Obligation bonds in an effort to generate taxpayer savings. The Board will be receiving an informational report from Blake Boehm of KNN Public Finance providing an overview of a potential bond refinancing and associated timeline.

BACKGROUND: District voters authorized Measure G in November 2011 providing $63 million of General Obligation bond funding for school facility projects. The District subsequently issued three series of bonds in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Property taxes are levied by the County and are ultimately paid by homeowners in order to make annual debt service payments on the outstanding bonds. Refunding bonds, which are similar to refinancing a home mortgage, pay off existing debt with funds borrowed at lower interest rates. The savings are then passed on to taxpayers in the form of lower property taxes.

    The District's Election of 2011, Series A and B bonds, are both strong candidates for a potential bond refinancing,
    estimated to generate taxpayer savings in excess of $4.89 million over the remaining life of the bonds.
    Interest rates on the outstanding Series A & Series B bonds range between 4% and 5%.                The bond refinancing will lower
    interest rates to an estimated 3.1%.
    The term of the refunding bonds will not extend the current repayment of bonds.
    There is no fiscal impact to the District as all costs associated with the refunding, including the KNN Public Finance
    Agreement, will be paid through the issuance of refunding bonds.

A recommendation to approve the refinancing of the Bond will be presented to the Board at the December 16, 2021, meeting.

File Attachments Presentation_Discussion of GO Bond Refinancing_11.18.21_vFN.pdf (1,224 KB) KNN Public Finance Agreement_GO Bond Refinancing_11-18-21.pdf (185 KB)

Report on Recent Needle Point Bipolar Ionization (NBPI) Air Testing

Type Discussion, Information PURPOSE: The Board will receive a report on the recent air quality and chemical composition testing conducted on October 2nd and 3rd, 2021 by Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) on the Needle Point Bipolar Ionization devices (NBPI).

The intended objective was to determine if the use of the Needle Point Bipolar Ionization devices (NBPI) produce harmful chemical byproducts.

BACKGROUND: Amid concerns expressed and recognition of the pending class action lawsuit brought against Global Plasma Solutions (GPS), the District disconnected the Needle Point Bipolar Ionization (NBPI) devices and engaged Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) to provide analytical air quality and chemical testing on the operation of the NBPI devices installed in Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning systems intended to help protect students, faculty and staff from the COVID 19 pandemic.

Gerard L. Baril, MS, CIH, Senior Project Manager, from Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) will review the purpose, testing criteria, methodology, and summary results of the subject air testing conducted.

File Attachments Test Results NPBI Board Presentation.pdf (1,590 KB) PJ66473 - Newark USD - IAQ Assessment-Phase 2 -11-03-21-FINAL.pdf (11,070 KB)

14. CONSENT AGENDA: PERSONNEL ITEMS

PLACEHOLDER - One Consented Vote

Type Action

Recommended It is recommended that the Board of Education approve, under one consented vote, the Action agenda items under Consent-Personnel, except for agenda items: PURPOSE: (This is specifically a placeholder, and will only be used if multiple agenda items are approved under a consented vote.)

BACKGROUND: Items within the Consent Agenda are considered routine and will be approved, adopted, or ratified by a single motion and action. There will not be a separate discussion of these items; however, any item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda upon the request of any member of the Board and acted upon separately.

Personnel Report

Type Action

Absolute Date Nov 18, 2021

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education ratify the personnel report as presented. Action All personnel activities including new hires, changes in status, resignation, leaves, and retirements are routinely submitted to the Board for ratification.

File Attachments HR PAL 11-18-2021.pdf (368 KB)

Motion & Voting The recommendation is that the Board of Education ratify the personnel report as presented.

Motion by Terrence Grindall, second by Alicia Marquez.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Bowen Zhang, Terrence Grindall, Aiden Hill, Alicia Marquez
Abstain: Estaina Resendiz-Ortiz

15. CONSENT AGENDA: NON-PERSONNEL ITEMS

PLACEHOLDER - One Consented Vote

Type Action

Recommended It is recommended that the Board of Education approve, under one consented vote, the Action agenda items under Consent Non-Personnel, except for agenda items: PURPOSE: (This is specifically a placeholder, and will only be used if multiple agenda items are approved under a consented vote.)

BACKGROUND: Items within the Consent Agenda are considered routine and will be approved, adopted, or ratified by a single motion and action. There will not be a separate discussion of these items; however, any item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda upon the request of any member of the Board and acted upon separately.

Motion & Voting It is recommended that the Board of Education approve, under one consented vote, the agenda items under Consent Non- Personnel, except for agenda items: 15.2 and 15.4.

Motion by Alicia Marquez, second by Terrence Grindall.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Bowen Zhang, Terrence Grindall, Aiden Hill, Alicia Marquez, Estaina Resendiz-Ortiz

2021-22 Purchase of Curriculum Associates, LLC for I-Ready Services

Type Action

Preferred Date Nov 18, 2021

Fiscal Impact Yes

Dollar Amount $126,552.00

Budgeted Yes

Budget Source ELO

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education approve the purchase of Curriculum Action Associates, LLC for I-Ready Services. PURPOSE:

i-Ready is a comprehensive assessment and instruction program for English-Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics that provides diagnostics and assessments for students grades Kindergarten through 6th grade. i-Ready provides teachers with clear reports and actionable data to identify students' strengths and areas of need and enables teachers to intervene with lessons and instructional resources that can be individualized for students or used with whole classes to accelerate academic growth for specific grade-level standards.

BACKGROUND:

This is the 6th year of district implementation of i-Ready and the program serves as a part of the district's comprehensive assessment program. Maintaining continuity allows NUSD to monitor students' instructional progress and identify trends and patterns in order to utilize data analysis for instructional planning and intervention purposes. i-Ready is utilized to support principals' professional development in leading data analysis for staff meetings and has been incorporated in the past for teachers as a part of district-wide professional development. Additionally, as a result of distance learning and in order to provide targeted intervention in the subjects of ELA and Mathematics in earlier grade levels, Newark Unified has expanded i-Ready to include grades K-6. This allows teachers to receive professional development, have access to online instructional and intervention resources, and provide targeted lessons for all students in elementary grades, K-6. By expanding to all elementary grades, Ed Services, K-6 teachers, and principals are able to monitor students' academic growth with data analysis reports and strategic and timely instruction and support. Due to the expansion of i-Ready for grades K-6 in both English-Language Arts and Mathematics, the total cost is $126,552.

File Attachments Curriculum Associates 21.22.pdf (914 KB)

Motion & Voting The recommendation is that the Board of Education approve the purchase of Curriculum Associates, LLC for I-Ready Services.

Motion by Terrence Grindall, second by Estaina Resendiz-Ortiz.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Bowen Zhang, Terrence Grindall, Alicia Marquez, Estaina Resendiz-Ortiz
Nay: Aiden Hill

Change Order #2 - Landscaping and Irrigation Project Group 1

Type Action

Fiscal Impact Yes

Dollar Amount $5,310.40

Budgeted Yes

Budget Source Bond Measure G

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education approve Change Order #2 for the Action Landscaping and Irrigation Project Group 1, with Marina Landscape, as presented. PURPOSE: Approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $5,310.40 for a total contract amount of $550,509.81 with Marina Landscape for the Landscaping and Irrigation Group 1 Project. This change is due to an unforeseen condition of the existing irrigation controllers not being wired to the system. This change is less than a 3% change of the contract and well within the project budget.

BACKGROUND: The Board approved the contract with Marina Landscape for the Landscaping and Irrigation Group 1 Project on June 17, 2021. The budget for the landscape and irrigation contract was estimated at $894,141.00. The base contract awarded to Marina Landscape was $535,400.00. The budget included a 5% contingency amount of $26,770.00. Change Order #1 was approved October 7, 2021, in the amount of $9,799.41.

This action item is to approve Change Order #2 (Final) which entails the following:

Locating controllers within a weatherproof pedestal type enclosure, for Birch Grove Primary, Birch Grove Intermediate, and Schilling Elementary Schools. $5,310.40 Total This Change Order $5,310.40

Contract Summary

Bid/Contract Amount $535,400.00 Contingency Amount $26,770.00 Change Order #1 $9,799.41 Change Order #2 (Final) $5,310.40 Unused Balance - Savings to District $11,660.19

File Attachments CO#2-Marina- Plant & Irrigation 3 sig.pdf (456 KB)

Warrant Report for October 2021

Type Action

Fiscal Impact No

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education approve the Warrant Report as presented. Action Purpose:

The purpose of this item is to present warrants, for the total amount of $1,871,831.89, made from District funds for October 2021.

Background:

The warrant registers represent a complete listing of all payments made from District funds for a month. Because Newark Unified School District is a fiscally dependent District, each warrant must pass through two separate audits; first by the District's Fiscal Services department, and second by the County Office of Education. No warrant can be paid until such time as it is examined and approved by the County Office of Education.

File Attachments Warrant Report October 2021.pdf (401 KB)

Minutes of the Novemebr 4, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Board of Education

Type Action, Minutes

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education approves the minutes of November 4, Action 2021, Regular Meeting of the Board of Education. PURPOSE: For the board to review and approve the minutes

BACKGROUND: The attached minutes are reflective of the November 4, 2021, Regular Meeting of the Board of Education. The meeting may be viewed on the NUSD YouTube Channel HERE

16. BOARD OF EDUCATION: COMMITTEE REPORTS, REQUESTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Board of Education Recognitions and Announcements

Type Information PURPOSE: The Trustees may acknowledge or recognize specific programs, activities, or personnel at this time.

Board of Education Committee Reports

Type Information PURPOSE:

The Trustees will provide an update, if available, on the committees of which they are members.

BACKGROUND: Each year the Board of Education members liaise with schools and committees in order to build relationships, hear from staff, students, and families, and act as a conduit for information to and from the schools.

Board Committees 2020-21

Board Adopted on 11/04/21 Representative Alternate

Mission Valley Regional Occupational Center/Program (ROC/P) 1. Bowen Zhang 1. Terrence Grindall Executive Board

Regional Policy Board of Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) 1. Bowen Zhang 1. Alicia Marquez

Newark Teacher Induction Advisory Council (Formally EBIC) 1. Phuong Nguyen 1. Aiden Hill

                                               1. Phuong Nguyen

Audit Committee 2. Aiden Hill 1. ________________

                                               1. Terrence Grindall

Bond/Parcel Tax Committee 2. Phuong Nguyen 1. Bowen Zhang

City of Newark � NUSD Liaison 1. Phuong Nguyen Committee 2. Terrence Grindall 1. Phuong Nguyen

Board of Education Requests

Type Action, Discussion, Information PURPOSE: This is an opportunity for the Board of Education to suggest items for placement on future agendas and to review Board requests.

Approval from the majority of the Board will be required for direction to be provided to the Superintendent.

BACKGROUND: The following derives directly from the Board approved "Governance Team Handbook"

Authority is Collective, Not Individual: The only authority to direct action rests with the Board as a whole when seated at a regular or special board meeting. Outside of this meeting, there is no authority. A majority Board vote provides direction to the Superintendent. Board members will not undermine the ability of staff to carry out Board direction.

Bringing New Ideas Forward The Board will be open to having "brainstorming" discussions, or study sessions, around any idea that a Trustee may feel merits exploratory consideration. "New Ideas" are defined as any proposal brought forward by a Trustee, at their initiative or at the request of a constituent, which was previously discussed during a board meeting. Trustees will first notify the Board President and Superintendent of their interest in bringing forward a new idea at a board meeting. When initially agendized, the preliminary discussion of a new idea will not require staff research time. Initially, staff will be expected to respond to new ideas based on current knowledge. Only a majority of the Board may direct the Superintendent to conduct research regarding the exploration of a new idea. The Superintendent will decide on the delegation of assignments to District staff. The new idea may be agendized for discussion only. The Board majority will decide if the new idea should be further developed and studied by staff. The Board majority will decide if staff time should be invested in the "fleshing out" of new ideas. Individual Trustees, in the course of interactions with constituents, will be careful not to make or imply the commitment of the full Board to explore or proceed with implementing new ideas.

17. SUPERINTENDENT'S CONCLUDING COMMENTS, UPDATES FOR THE BOARD AND FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

Superintendent's Concluding Comments, Updates, and Future Agenda Items

                       AGENDA REQUESTS

Type Information PURPOSE: This is an opportunity for the Superintendent to make any concluding comments, updates, agenda requests, or provide information of future meetings.

18. ADJOURNMENT

PLACEHOLDER - Extend Meeting

Type Action

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education extends the meeting to ____P.M. Action PURPOSE:

This is a placeholder, only to be used if the Board adds a motion and action to extend the meeting.

Motion & Voting The recommendation is that the Board of Education extends the meeting to 11: P.M.

Motion by Bowen Zhang, second by Terrence Grindall.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries


Yea: Bowen Zhang, Terrence Grindall, Aiden Hill, Alicia Marquez, Estaina Resendiz-Ortiz

Adjournment

Type Action, Procedural

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education adjourns this meeting. Action PURPOSE: No items will be considered after 10:00 p.m. unless it is determined by a majority of the Board to extend to a specific time.

This action will conclude the meeting.

No minutes available.