[0:18] Okay, 6 o'clock, I'm going to call this meeting to order

[0:22] Let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:27] 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.

[0:43] Can I get a roll call, please?

[0:45] Trustee Sharp, here

[0:48] Trustee Cheek. Here. Trustee Coleman. Here.

[0:53] Trustee Cohen Thompson, Trustee Dean? Here. Trustee Dunn? Here. Trustee LaVelle. Here

[1:00] Approval and adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion? Okay, I'm going to take a motion from Trustee Cohen Thompson and a second from Trustee Cheek. Can I get a roll call vote?

[1:15] Trustee Cohen-Thompson.

[1:19] She said yes, Trustee Dean. Trustee Dean.

[1:26] Yes. Trustee Dunn? Yes.

[1:30] Trustee LaVelle? Yes. Trustee Coleman? Yes. Trustee Cheek? Yes. Trustee Sherp? Yes

[1:37] Comments from the community. Did we have any?

[1:40] Okay, so moving on to the board study session. We'll go to our wonderful council.

[1:46] Good evening, everyone. So first of all, for those of you who weren't in the room when I mentioned, I'm actually in Maine right now.

[1:53] I made a scheduling error, so thank you so much for accommodating me.

[1:57] I'm really excited to be here tonight. Um, I can see you all. Can you all hear and see me okay?

[2:03] Okay, so…

[2:05] This will be the first time that I've had the opportunity.

[2:09] To do a board workshop with you all, so we've got 3.

[2:12] topics for tonight. Um, the thing that I love about board workshops is they are a little different than the normal board meetings.

[2:19] So while I have slides and information that I obviously want to share with you all,

[2:23] Please stop me at any point in time if you have questions, or if you want to engage in a discussion.

[2:29] We have obviously three very, very different topics to go through, so there'll be opportunity. I built in some time for questions at the end of each topic.

[2:36] But please don't hesitate to put your hand up, yell, or whatever, if you want me to talk through something further on the slides.

[2:45] Without any further ado, we're going to be talking about 3 different topics.

[2:50] First is going to be the Charter Petition renewal process.

[2:54] And the goal of the charter petition renewal process presentation is really just to get.

[2:59] Everyone on the same page and brought up to speed.

[3:03] On what does the renewal petition process look like from start to finish, and what's SCO staff gonna be doing?

[3:11] And then what will the board's ultimate obligation and, you know, requirements be?

[3:15] When it comes to the elite petition. So, to be clear, today's.

[3:20] discussion is going to be about the law, the renewal petition process.

[3:24] all of that, so that you are equipped with that information. We're not talking about the elite.

[3:29] petitions specifically, I might… I might allude to some.

[3:32] some things more generally, but I just want to make that clear that this is not a topic to engage in a discussion regarding Elite's petition.

[3:40] We'll have separate set dates for those, which I'll go through when we talk about the timeline.

[3:45] And then we're gonna move on to the Inter-District Transfer Appeal Process. As you all know, we.

[3:51] We, I'm saying we too, because we were all part of it, um, went through, I think, was the final number 28?

[3:57] I think 28 appeals. And so really the goal is to.

[4:02] do sort of a debrief, kind of what did we learn, what were the successes, what were the challenges, um, and really have an opportunity to.

[4:09] proactively discuss that in anticipation of the next year, so that any changes.

[4:15] Or adjustments that need to be made, there's plenty of opportunity for everyone to discuss that now and have follow-up conversations.

[4:22] And then we will end with, um, a topic related to.

[4:26] A potential option for a trustee question process for trustees to provide questions in advance of board meetings.

[4:33] And Superintendent Parr will help me with that discussion, so.

[4:38] Before we dive in, anything President Sharp or Superintendent Parr that you wanted to add?

[4:48] Hearing none.

[4:51] Okay.

[4:54] Then we will dive right in. So you all have the slides in front of you, is that correct?

[5:00] Yes, yes

[5:01] Okay, so I'm going to just start with the background.

[5:05] I know you've all heard me talk about AB 1505 a lot, and I know some folks on

[5:09] in the room are very familiar with the changes.

[5:12] Um, so the good news is, this is the first time the board's going through this process, so you're not having to.

[5:18] relearn it, you're just learning the first process, since you haven't

[5:21] been through it pre-AB1505. So I think that does help.

[5:25] The most important thing, and we're gonna dive into this a little bit deeper,

[5:28] But post-AB 1505, there was a significant change where now renewals are.

[5:34] I don't want to say solely dependent, but mostly dependent on the California dashboard data.

[5:40] And depending on how a school performs on that for the last, the two years immediately preceding renewal.

[5:47] that will define the renewal criteria applicable to that charter school. So we're gonna dive into that.

[5:53] a little bit further, but just wanted to note that that's the significant change. For those of you who like to read the statutes,

[6:01] The most important two statutes are going to be Education Code Section 47607.

[6:09] An Education Code 47607.2.

[6:13] I will talk about some of the statutory language now, but I know, um, some folks might want to go read that.

[6:18] later, or have that maybe ready with you at some of the board meetings, so that you can kind of look at the statute.

[6:23] It is not the most user-friendly.

[6:28] I'll be honest, and so we can talk through what some of the criteria.

[6:32] Um…

[6:34] Require. Okay.

[6:36] So…

[6:40] Timelines. First and foremost, let's start with…

[6:44] the timelines. So, the main statute, 47607.

[6:49] says that charter renewals and material revisions are governed by the standards and criteria described in Section 47605.

[6:58] And so 47605 is the statute that is applicable to new petitions.

[7:05] And so basically what this is saying is that the standards and criteria.

[7:10] that apply to new petitions also apply to renewal petitions,

[7:14] And then there's additional criteria.

[7:16] Um, one thing I just want to note here is that I don't believe that there was any ambiguity in the law, but in the last.

[7:24] 6 months to a year, there's been.

[7:26] quite a few charter school litigation matters up and down the state, challenging the timelines.

[7:33] For renewal petitions, there is a.

[7:36] California Code of Regulations Regulation.

[7:39] That said, if a

[7:42] Authorizer fails to

[7:44] act within 60 days on a renewal petition.

[7:49] that the…

[7:52] The renewal petition is essentially deemed approved as a matter of law.

[7:57] And so…

[8:00] You'll see I'm going to talk about the timelines applicable to renewal petitions next.

[8:04] Which have a 60-day timeline for the initial public hearing and 90 days for action, and so you obviously can't act within 60 days if you have a full 90 days.

[8:13] So the trailer bill, the recent trailer bill.

[8:16] SB 126 specifically.

[8:19] Clarified this and said that this language here that says standards and criteria.

[8:24] Also includes the timeline set forth in 47605. So now we have absolutely no ambiguity in the law.

[8:31] that the same timelines that apply to a new petition.

[8:34] Apply to renewal petitions.

[8:36] So that's important. And then the second part is, in addition to all the renewal criteria we're going to talk about in a moment.

[8:43] The only thing that really should significantly change in a renewal petition

[8:48] is that they make any updates.

[8:51] To the petition to ensure that they are in a complying and has addressed any changes in the law.

[8:58] Since the renewal was first submitted.

[9:01] Um, and the reason why I say there should be one of the only main changes that is made is because, and we've gone through this before, is there's.

[9:08] A separate type of petition, which are material revisions.

[9:12] And you all have reviewed two different material revisions already for Elite.

[9:17] And so if a charter school is going to make significant changes to their renewal petition,

[9:23] For example, let's say they're going to increase grade levels, or they're going to add additional school sites.

[9:28] That would be a material revision, which may be submitted at the same time as the renewal petition,

[9:33] But that is a separate petition, so we want to make sure that.

[9:36] charter schools aren't significantly revising things as part of their renewal petition.

[9:42] Because there's not really a process set forth in the renewal criteria.

[9:47] to consider those changes. So, just want to throw that out there as well for you all.

[9:52] Questions so far?

[9:57] So, the timeline, what is the timeline? I just mentioned? There's 60 days, within 60 days of receipt of the petition.

[10:04] The author riser must hold an initial public hearing. So, hopefully you all know that the first public hearing for Elite is going to happen at the regular meeting next Wednesday.

[10:13] So that will scratch, you know, check that box off in terms of the requirements and the timeline.

[10:19] The two most, um…

[10:21] The two most important timelines next are going to be

[10:24] I'm going to skip ahead. Within 90 days of receipt of the petition, the board must hold a second public hearing and take action.

[10:33] Those two events happen at the same board meeting.

[10:36] So it'll be one agenda item for another public hearing.

[10:39] And then there'll be a separate agenda item for.

[10:42] the board's action, whatever that action might be. Consideration of approval.

[10:47] So that has to happen within 90 days.

[10:49] Depending on whatever date that is,

[10:52] Let's back up. 15 days before that.

[10:58] staff must publish their.

[11:00] findings of fact and or recommendations if they make recommendations.

[11:05] So that is new.

[11:07] Pre-AB 1505, any staff findings or recommendations were just posted in accordance with the Brown Act.

[11:13] Which you can imagine, probably didn't provide enough time, for example, maybe there was some components in there that needed to be addressed or that the charter school want to be able to respond to.

[11:21] that didn't allow enough time, so.

[11:24] The staff report in this case will be posted 15 days before the final action.

[11:28] Um, and as I mentioned at the last regular meeting, that is going to happen at the November regular board meeting, and because of Veterans Day.

[11:36] It's 1 week later than normal.

[11:38] And so SCO has already reached out to Elite.

[11:42] to request, it's just a couple day extension.

[11:45] In light of the holiday to allow the board to consider this at a regular meeting, as opposed to having to schedule a special meeting, so.

[11:52] Those dates are already on calendar.

[11:55] I think Trustee Dean, you asked this question at the last meeting.

[11:58] Um, the Charter Schools Act does allow for basically a 30-day extension of that 90 days.

[12:04] If both parties mutually agree, so.

[12:06] You could agree to a 120-day timeline if both parties agreed to that.

[12:13] Any questions on the timeline?

[12:18] I have a question

[12:19] Yes, Trustee Dean.

[12:22] The 15-day the report comes at the 15 days

[12:28] Prior to the second theory report

[12:29] Yep.

[12:33] factual findings

[12:35] Is there a deadline or a moment between the 15 day mark and the hearing where the applicant has an opportunity to respond in writing.

[12:46] And what is it

[12:47] Great question. So there's nothing that was embedded in the charter schools act for that. That obviously doesn't mean that a charter school can't.

[12:53] A lot of charter schools.

[12:55] shorter renewal petitions that I've dealt with.

[12:57] The the applicant or the charter school does in fact provide some written response ahead of the.

[13:05] The meeting, if that's something that the board wants, you know, I think it's helpful maybe to share that with.

[13:10] You know, at a public meeting, for example.

[13:13] with the charter school. What the act does say, however, which.

[13:18] Kind of answers your question, but kinda doesn't, which is why I say it wasn't really embedded in there, is it does say that the.

[13:24] charter school basically gets, quote, equivalent time and procedures.

[13:29] to respond. Now, what does that mean, right? Equivalent time and procedures.

[13:34] Um, how that has historically been interpreted is that when we've done this before for the material revisions and the new petitions that.

[13:41] This board has reviewed post-AB 1505 is.

[13:46] At the hearing, the second public hearing, if staff gives a 10-minute presentation, for example.

[13:52] Then the charter school, make sure that they get the equivalent time for the presentation portion.

[13:57] There's no real clarity on what does that mean from the staff report.

[14:01] And so if I were a charter school, I would take it upon myself to, if I feel like I needed to provide something in writing, that I would do that ahead of the.

[14:07] The board meeting so that, you know, the board can have adequate time to consider any new findings, or maybe there's something in there that staff didn't see.

[14:14] to allow some back and forth. So that does happen, it's just not technically embedded somewhere in the act.

[14:22] Can I follow up?

[14:23] Yeah.

[14:26] The issue that I'm thinking about and issue is a strong word. The note that I have on this.

[14:35] As we've experienced and it happens all the time

[14:40] My thought is, it's a problem if we get that giant package of response a day or two before the actual event

[14:50] And now that we're sitting here, I'm thinking, we should have our own policy about get it to us on X date, right? If it's a Wednesday the Friday before

[14:56] Yeah.

[14:59] But maybe there's a moment in this whole transaction where we can speak to them and say, hey

[15:06] Give it to us, and if you want to respond, please give it to us in sufficient time for the human beings that are here to actually absorb and be able to understand

[15:16] So I don't know how we might do that. But that's what's in my mind.

[15:21] Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense, and I don't know if anyone else has anything else to add to that.

[15:25] I would say, I think obviously there's an opportunity at the initial public hearing for trustees to share anything.

[15:32] With elite that they might, you know, suggest or any input that they might have or food for thought for them to think about.

[15:38] But I would also say during the process, like when.

[15:42] Staff posts it, and staff is super communicative with, you know, Dr. Pinpin, you know, she's very, very communicative.

[15:49] With Elite is at least just giving that suggestion, hey, it probably would make it a lot more effective and efficient if you do have a response to provide it within a reasonable time so that the trustees have sufficient time to review, so.

[16:00] There's nothing I think that would prevent…

[16:03] Staff from doing that just organically, so I think that's definitely something we can write down and jot as a thing to take care of.

[16:11] It really would go for anybody submitting stuff because I don't know about other people on Wednesday after 12, it's dicey whether I'm going to look at my email again depending on what's going on. So maybe there's a way to just…

[16:26] Yeah.

[16:27] kindly suggests that if they really want it red, they'd want to get it to us by Tuesday night to give a fighting chance. Whatever the time is.

[16:35] My thing is that in the crafting of AB 1505, the issue

[16:41] And thereafter, the issue from the charter folks was, hey man, you can't give us this detailed thing without enough

[16:49] time for us to have a fighting chance to respond. And that's fine. So it's 15 days ahead. That's not… there's no 15 days ahead any place else. So it's

[16:59] To me, I would say in my day job, I try to always get them the response like the Friday before, if it's a Wednesday meeting or Saturday morning, because we all know we're looking at our packets over the week

[17:12] So anyway, that's

[17:15] Tuesday… no, not Tuesday so those are just my thoughts.

[17:21] So I appreciate you right. There's no way and people don't really think about it

[17:26] Anyone else? Okay.

[17:31] Okay, so moving on now to the actual renewal criteria.

[17:37] So, there are…

[17:39] Schools are categorized into one of three categories, either high.

[17:43] middle or low performing. And this is based purely on.

[17:48] the California dashboard data.

[17:50] and the performance, and the two years immediately preceding renewal.

[17:57] We can spend a lot of time on all of these. We're gonna focus on the low-performing. I'm gonna give you the criteria, since this is, you know, a general.

[18:04] session on the high and middle performing, but because Elite is a low-performing charter school.

[18:10] Based on the California dashboard data, and as reflected in their renewal petition, they don't contest that.

[18:17] We'll spend a little bit more time on that.

[18:19] Couple of things I want to note is that the CDE does post this annually.

[18:25] Um, and they designate all charter schools.

[18:28] Based on the dashboard data, whether or not the renewal petition is up. So if you ever are curious, you can always go on the CDE's website.

[18:36] And they have all of this.

[18:38] Um, and they do their own analysis, you know, the act doesn't specifically contemplate that the CDE does this.

[18:45] And that they are, you know,

[18:47] supposed to do it, but it is helpful that they do that. I do always suggest, if there's any question between the charter school and the authorizer, of whether or not.

[18:56] the CDE appropriately or accurately categorized for staff to do the analysis themself. Um, the good news here is there's not a dispute, so that's not necessarily something that needs to happen.

[19:07] Um, but it still is helpful to do for sure.

[19:10] So determining which category.

[19:15] really starts on whether they're… if they're high or low, if they're not high or low, then by default they are middle. So that's really where the analysis happens.

[19:22] And so now I'm on slide, uh…

[19:26] 11, if you're all following along.

[19:29] So, there's ICOM 2 criterionite. This is also how the CDE defines the two of them.

[19:36] is criterion 1 to either be.

[19:39] high performing is based on all the colors received.

[19:44] for all state indicators on the dashboard. So this is looking at just school-wide data only.

[19:51] So, this is all of the dashboard state indicators.

[19:55] The second criterion.

[19:58] is going to be a comparison of the school-wide performance and student group data.

[20:04] And so, if we're looking at the second criterion.

[20:08] This is based only on the academic indicators.

[20:12] And then we're just looking at those pupil subgroups with 30 more students.

[20:16] And there's a whole analysis that we're going to spend some time on in a moment. It does get confusing.

[20:21] Um, for folks in the room who have done this analysis, and I know there's a couple.

[20:25] Um, it is not the most.

[20:28] straightforward analysis, and the second one can be a little bit more complicated, so we'll walk through that in a moment.

[20:35] But like I mentioned, if a school is not high or low based on criteria on one or two, then they are by default middle performing.

[20:44] So…

[20:46] Moving first to the criteria number one.

[20:50] A school is high performing if they have received blue or green.

[20:55] across all state indicators for the two years immediately preceding renewal.

[21:01] It's basically the opposite for low performing.

[21:03] If they've received red or orange across all state indicators for the past 2 years, then they are low performing.

[21:11] Okay, let's say a charter school didn't meet either one of these criterion.

[21:15] Then we go to number 2.

[21:18] For high-performing, we're looking again at all academic indicators with a color.

[21:25] And the charter school has received performance levels school-wide that are the same or higher than the state average.

[21:33] So we're looking at the school-wide performance.

[21:36] And then we're going to look at the majority of subgroups that are performing statewide,

[21:41] below the state average, so I'm…

[21:43] Not picking any for any particular reason other than for an example, but let's say.

[21:48] your foster youth and student with disabilities.

[21:51] statewide are performing

[21:54] under the statewide average in math, then you're going to take those subgroups, and you're going to see how the charter school is doing compared to those subgroups.

[22:01] So we're really trying to see

[22:03] Of those subgroups that are performing below the state level, how is your subgroups

[22:09] performing against those other subgroups statewide.

[22:13] And then it's basically the exact opposite for the low-performing.

[22:19] Questions on that? It is not self-explanatory. I know some folks in the room, I don't know if there's any

[22:25] SCO folks who have done the analysis.

[22:28] Um, if you want to share your.

[22:30] I think there's somebody in here.

[22:33] Who's done the analysis.

[22:36] Clarify, Courtney, when you say the two years immediately preceding the petition, in this case, is that going to mean 2025 and 2026?

[22:45] So, it is going to be… yes, no, it's going to be 2024 and 2025, because we don't have the 2026 data yet.

[22:51] posted.

[22:54] So what I will say is that that data is going to be… I think it's going to be posted, like, mid-October.

[23:02] Yeah

[23:03] Is that correct for folks in the room? Yeah, mid-October.

[23:04] Um, I know, I think LEAs have already received that data, but that's not going to be posted until.

[23:10] mid-October, which at that point, the staff report will probably be close to and or.

[23:15] Posted and so normally what you do is it's you take the data based on the time of submission.

[23:21] If there's adequate time to review the new stuff, then maybe, but because here you'll be kind of.

[23:27] Right, butting up against the timeline, it will be the 24-25 data, unless any folks in the room have other thoughts.

[23:34] That October, I think it's like October 15th or 14th, is that when the dad is going to be posted this year?

[23:39] Something like that.

[23:44] The determination to those 2 years

[23:48] Sorry, can you say that one more time?

[23:51] Termination to use 24 and 45.

[23:56] That's been agreed upon

[23:57] with the charter in our case.

[24:01] Do the parties agree to that?

[24:05] It is the data that is included in their renewal petition.

[24:11] That's not the same. That's not great, but then I'm like, no, she didn't answer my question. Didn't he?

[24:15] Okay. Well, so let me, to answer your question, no, it hasn't been agreed upon because.

[24:21] There's no agreement at this stage to be made, because the petition is currently in receipt, right? And so you have the data before you.

[24:28] So if there's other thoughts that folks…

[24:31] want to discuss further, we can certainly do that.

[24:37] What then is the impact that the October report?

[24:40] We don't know. We don't we don't know what that data says now. I mean.

[24:46] I think LEAs know what the data says. I don't wanna.

[24:50] speculate.

[24:53] Commit to our proceedings.

[24:56] So they brought these two years. We're reviewing the two years. It feels like everybody's agreed to the two years. And then October comes out either far better, far worse, whatever. Is that something we consider

[25:12] I mean, it's something that could be discussed for sure.

[25:15] The act does not, this is another thing.

[25:17] The act doesn't take this into consideration.

[25:22] So while the charter school act has a lot of words, there's a lot of gaps, and this is one of the gaps.

[25:27] And so what I can tell you statewide what the practice is.

[25:32] Generally. Obviously, I can't speak for every single authorizer, but the authorizer I have worked with and my colleagues have worked with.

[25:38] have utilized the data available at the time of the submission.

[25:44] Now, should new data come out, and it changes things, I think that is a question.

[25:50] For discussion amongst, obviously, this group.

[25:54] we could utilize that 30-day extension period, right? That's built in there, so if there's.

[26:00] Everyone feels like, hey, we want to push this and review this new data. I think that's something that can certainly happen.

[26:06] Um, but I think we would need direction from the board.

[26:10] If and when that is something you wanted to do.

[26:19] So we're kind of in a holding pattern until October, frankly.

[26:24] But I think it would be fair to maybe raise that, for example, to Elite as well.

[26:29] at a public hearing or something like that as well.

[26:34] Other thoughts?

[26:39] Okay.

[26:41] So I'm going to speed through, if okay with everyone, just to be, um, careful with time of the high-performing.

[26:49] There's a question.

[26:50] Oh, yeah.

[26:51] President Sharp?

[26:53] So how would that be raised with elite?

[26:57] at when they come in after we start reviewing the petition or ask them if they want a 30-day extension to review

[27:07] 25 and 26 instead of 24 and 25 before we're reviewing the petition.

[27:13] It can happen in a number of ways. One of the ways it can happen is at the public hearing next week.

[27:18] If a trustee wants to pose that question, because there'll be an opportunity. Elite will be presenting, at least that's my understanding. I don't know if anyone from… if Superintendent Parr or others… I see some nodding ahead, Dr. Shin, yeah.

[27:28] So, Elite will be there presenting next week.

[27:31] And then there will be an opportunity for trustees to ask questions and or make comments, and so I think that would be a potential opportunity to.

[27:37] raise it for the first time, but obviously staff can do that as well. There'll be another board meeting in the middle.

[27:43] Um, and so if the board has direction that they want to give staff to communicate something to Elite, that can happen there.

[27:49] Elite, obviously, can always make the request for an extension themselves as well, so let's say they get the data, and they realize, shoot, this changes things for us one way or the other.

[27:58] They can always make the request as well.

[28:05] Other questions? Okay, you're good? Okay.

[28:08] Okay, anything else? Any other questions?

[28:12] Okay, so high performing.

[28:14] This is… it doesn't say this in the law, but it's essentially like a de facto renewal.

[28:20] The statue says that a charter school that satisfies the high-performing criteria.

[28:25] shall be renewed. Um, and it's only unless specific circumstances are met, which I'm going to go over in a moment, which are applicable to all charter schools, regardless of their performance.

[28:35] So it is a shall be renewed.

[28:37] They only need to update their petition to include any, you know, changes in the law.

[28:41] And then they can be renewed for a 5-7 year term.

[28:44] The law does not say, well, how do you decide 5, 6, or 7?

[28:49] That is fully up to the discretion of the board. Um, some boards might decide to, you know.

[28:54] Put criteria or factors in their policy, or they might just make decisions, but there's nothing in the law that says whether it's 5, 6, or 7 that, again, is fully up to the board.

[29:03] And that is new.

[29:06] Pre-AB 1505, if a charter petition was renewed, it was for 5 years. So now we're going to have charters that are all on different.

[29:13] terms, you'll see we're going to go to the the.

[29:15] low-performing, which is for a two-year term, so.

[29:18] This is another new change post AB 1505.

[29:21] The idea is that if you're high performing, then you need, you don't need to come up.

[29:26] for authorization as frequently because you are high performing. Obviously, there's other considerations that I'm going to go to in a moment.

[29:33] Just cause you're high performing doesn't necessarily mean that you're fiscally sound or.

[29:37] That you're, you know, operating your governance structure appropriately. So there's other areas or ways or mechanisms.

[29:43] to non-renew a high-performing charter school.

[29:47] So, I'm gonna spend a little bit of time here.

[29:50] And for those folks, again, who do like to review.

[29:53] the statutes I'm going to talk about the low performing.

[29:57] And I am actually going to read part of the statute.

[30:00] Um, so this is 47607.2 specifically.

[30:05] and subdivision A.

[30:07] A 1 through.

[30:11] A.

[30:13] 5 is gonna be the applicable section, so…

[30:17] I don't normally advise folks to read the statute, but I would do it in this case, because there's a lot there, and um.

[30:25] you know, when we're dealing with a low-performing charter school.

[30:29] The statute says the chartering authority shall not renew.

[30:34] A charter if either of the conditions are met, and that's essentially whether they qualify under Criterion 1 or Criterion 2.

[30:42] And so the way the law is written is if you satisfy either one of those, it's not an and.

[30:48] If you satisfy either one of those, then you qualify as low performing.

[30:52] So the default is that these are… that low-performing charter schools are not renewed. It's a shall not renew and I know.

[30:59] Shout is mandatory.

[31:01] It's not permissive, it's mandatory.

[31:04] The statute then goes on to say…

[31:07] that.

[31:09] The authorizer may renew a low-performing charter school.

[31:16] Only upon making both of the following written factual findings.

[31:23] Specific to the particular petition setting forth specific facts to support the findings.

[31:29] So that means, one, the board must make written factual findings, which is usually adopted.

[31:35] In your board resolution.

[31:37] So that's number… that's the most important thing.

[31:40] And it has to…

[31:42] satisfy all 3 of these.

[31:46] Number one is that the charter school is taking meaningful steps.

[31:52] To address the underlying cause or causes.

[31:56] of low performance.

[31:59] And those steps are either reflected,

[32:02] or will be reflected.

[32:04] And a written plan adopted by the governing body of the charter school. So what does all that mean?

[32:11] Criteria number one is that the charter school must have and or will be adopting a written plan, and it's the board of the charter school, not the governing board of the authorizer.

[32:21] Must adopt a written plan.

[32:24] that addresses the underlying cause or causes of low performance.

[32:28] So that's number one.

[32:30] Number 2 is that there is clear and convincing evidence showing either of the following.

[32:35] The first is that the school achieved measurable increases in academic achievement.

[32:40] And then number 2 is strong post-secondary.

[32:43] outcomes.

[32:48] If the board makes written factual findings supporting both of those, the written adopted plan.

[32:54] And that there's clear and convincing evidence of either one of those.

[32:58] Then the authorizer may, it's a may, it's not a shall,

[33:03] may renew,

[33:05] for two years only. So if…

[33:08] A board finds that all of the criteria under here have been satisfied, and they make written factual findings.

[33:14] supporting that decision.

[33:16] Senate board can renew a low-performing charter school.

[33:19] Only for two years.

[33:21] So again, the standard is shall not renew unless you make written factual findings.

[33:26] If you make the written factual findings, then the term is only 2 years.

[33:31] Questions on that? Comments on that?

[33:37] Okay.

[33:41] And then…

[33:43] If low or high performing

[33:46] isn't satisfied, then you fall in the middle performing bucket.

[33:50] And you shall consider the school-wide performance of all subgroups.

[33:55] on the state indicators,

[33:57] and the local indicators.

[34:00] And then you can only deny.

[34:02] A middle-performing charter school, if you make 3 findings.

[34:06] Number one is that the charter school has failed to make

[34:09] or meet sufficient progress toward the standards that benefit all students.

[34:14] Number two, closure of the charter schools in the best interests of students, and this is an and.

[34:20] And if applicable, the decision provided greater weight to measurements of academic performance. This is a very high bar.

[34:27] We don't see middle performing charter schools being.

[34:30] close very often, because again, as you can see, that number 2 one is, you need to find that the.

[34:35] closure of the charter schools in the best interests of the students.

[34:39] Now, the law does not say what that means.

[34:41] Um, so that's going to be up to the discretion of the board.

[34:45] Okay.

[34:47] Any questions so far?

[34:51] Okay, so…

[34:53] Whether you're high, middle, or low-performing charter school,

[34:56] There's one other avenue to non-renew.

[35:00] a charter school. And it's a may deny.

[35:05] If the charter school is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program.

[35:12] Due to substantial fiscal or governance factors, and so this is where we have, you know, for example, maybe there's a charter school that's fiscally unsound.

[35:20] engaging in fraud, you know, there's concerns of the fiscal side of the house.

[35:26] That's one way, and or if there's issues with governance.

[35:31] Failure to comply with the Brown Act, various components. So that's one way. Another way is if this charter school is not serving all pupils who wish to attend.

[35:40] And so this… what this really means is essentially if they're engaging in discriminatory enrollment practices and or disenrolling students.

[35:47] impermissibly under the Education Code.

[35:49] And so authorizers can actually request data from the CDE.

[35:54] of enrollment patterns of charter schools to consider this.

[35:58] Now, the thing with this…

[36:00] factor, or…

[36:03] prong of the test is that

[36:05] there's a sort of a remedial period, and so if an authorizer anticipates non-renewing a charter school based on these.

[36:11] You do need to provide.

[36:14] At least 30 days notice.

[36:16] of the alleged opportunity.

[36:18] And an opportunity for the charter school to cure the violation, including a.

[36:23] corrective plan, taking action on a corrective plan.

[36:26] So that does require some work ahead of time, and I always advise authorizers if you anticipate that one of these are an issue.

[36:33] being ahead of it and making sure that you take these actions before the renewal petition even comes in sometimes.

[36:38] If, if you know clearly of some of these concerns so that you have adequate time to.

[36:44] provide for this 30-day remedial period.

[36:46] This obviously also

[36:48] could play into the 30-day extension that's permitted under the law?

[36:53] Right, so if for some reason this… there's new facts or circumstances that come to light.

[36:58] You could always request a 30-day extension to allow for the authorizer to engage in this with the charter school.

[37:07] Okay.

[37:10] So…

[37:12] The next slide talks about the notification requirement.

[37:16] there's a lot of information here, no need to review all this.

[37:19] All this basically means is that if a charter.

[37:22] Authorizer does in fact renew the charter school. There's certain.

[37:27] Notification requirements that must be provided to the CDE.

[37:31] The website is very clear, it has a form, all this, it's more of an administrative thing that SCO, the SCO team would be doing.

[37:37] So, just 2 more slides left, and then I want to make sure we have sufficient time for questions on this.

[37:43] Appeals.

[37:45] So if a authorizer does not grant a renewal petition,

[37:49] at the school district level,

[37:52] They can appeal within 30 days to the…

[37:55] To the county board. If it's a county board authorized, already county board authorized charter school.

[38:01] And the county board does not grant the renewal petition, the charter school can submit

[38:06] the appeal to the State Board of Education.

[38:08] within 30 days.

[38:11] And I know you've all been through the

[38:13] appeal process few years ago with a new petition that came through, so you're probably somewhat familiar with this. It's the same process for a new renewal petitions.

[38:22] Is that the State Board of Education.

[38:25] Only reviews for an abuse of discretion, they do not do a de novo review.

[38:30] And they must find that there was an abuse of discretion by both the school district and the County Board of Education.

[38:37] To reverse a denial, so they would need to find that both.

[38:41] Agencies, basically.

[38:43] abuse their discretion, which is a very, very, very high bar.

[38:47] And if they do find that.

[38:49] then the CDE, in consultation with the charter school.

[38:53] will designate either the county board or school district if it started at the school district, or if it started at the county board, then the county board would become the authorizer.

[39:06] If the charter petition is granted, there's a few considerations. I mentioned the notification to the CDE.

[39:13] Another big thing is reviewing the operational MOUs and any sort of oversight protocols. I think.

[39:20] You know, once you're going through the renewal process.

[39:23] That's a good time to consider or re-review any oversight protocols.

[39:27] The thing with the operational MOU is.

[39:29] Authorizers do this a variety of ways.

[39:33] Sometimes it's in tandem.

[39:35] And so you're reviewing both of them at the same time.

[39:38] Sometimes it's after the fact, because you don't know if you're gonna approve, right? The petition.

[39:43] And so if you're negotiating an MOU,

[39:46] And a board ultimately doesn't grant the renewal petition, then, you know.

[39:50] It's a moot point at that point in time.

[39:53] Um, so this can happen a variety of ways. I'm sure that folks here have some thoughts on.

[39:59] Theoretically, a process in this case, which I think I would like to kind of allow an opportunity to talk through.

[40:05] And then one other thing, we're not going to go dive deep into it. I do think this might be a good idea. Some.

[40:10] other point down the road.

[40:13] If, if the renewal petition in this case is granted.

[40:17] To go over the significant oversight changes.

[40:20] That were passed in the recent trailer bill.

[40:25] Related to oversight. There's very, very significant changes that have been changed.

[40:30] Via the trailer bill that take most of them, some of them took effect immediately, but most of them take effect July 1st of 2020.

[40:37] 7. So I think that if and when this board does become, you know, an authorizer.

[40:43] continuing to become an authorizer, that it might be helpful to go over what those changes are. I would also suggest that those changes be reflected in any revised operational MOU, if that does end up becoming applicable.

[40:56] Any thoughts or questions or discussion on the operational MOU side of things? Obviously not specifically.

[41:03] The details of the agreement, but conceptually, the process or timelines.

[41:13] So just off the top of my head. I feel like either

[41:19] The granting of the renewal petition should be conditioned on certain things

[41:26] being accomplished through the MOU

[41:29] You know, from our various learnings over the past several years.

[41:33] Or they should come at the same time

[41:37] They're too closely related.

[41:43] Not be sort of either looking at them in total. Well, to not be looking at them in total

[41:50] So my thought is

[41:52] As we've gone through, as we are going through

[41:56] We look to

[41:58] And you can tell me, Courtney, if this is legal. We look to put some conditions in the

[42:07] renewal that would be

[42:12] Brought to life, if you will, in the MOU.

[42:18] So can I respond to that?

[42:25] Okay, um, so what I have seen, and tell me if this is not what you're…

[42:30] contemplating is I have seen, basically, in, like, a resolution.

[42:35] approving whether it's a new or renewal petition, saying this is sort of a conditional approval.

[42:41] That X, Y, and Z must be satisfied. Some of them might have, you know, end dates within 30 days, 60 days, whatever it is.

[42:48] and or it's conditioned on agreeing to these terms in an operational MOU. So how I have seen that done before is part of a resolution.

[42:55] For example, if you're approving it conditionally on these things that would later be contemplated in MOU.

[43:01] and or, you know, revise in an MOU, but that the resolution itself includes those, so they're memorialized.

[43:07] That's one option.

[43:11] Yes.

[43:12] Something like that. Look to staff to see how comfortable they would be with trying to accomplish these these 2 things in tandem, even though they very definitely are related.

[43:25] versus one after the other.

[43:29] It's just a question. How do you all feel about that?

[43:33] People who are working on actually it makes sense that the two process would work together. It's just that I

[43:50] If in case the renewal petition is not approved

[43:55] Then

[43:57] the revised MOU may be a moot point for them.

[44:01] So, but whatever the board wants, we will comply.

[44:05] And as a practical matter, does that make sense or not

[44:09] This is the time, this is like

[44:12] Bargaining with a bargaining unit. This is the time that the contract is open and it comes up for renewal.

[44:19] And so if we wanted to make changes to the MOU because of stuff we've seen for the past seven years, this is the organic time to do that.

[44:30] And we do

[44:32] Right.

[44:33] We need some stuff

[44:35] From an administrative oversight standpoint, some of our biggest challenges in being able to answer the board's questions have been based on the ambiguity of the MOU. And

[44:48] That has been challenging for us, and I know it's caused much frustration. So I would be willing to work with staff to put in the additional hours to bring those in tandem. I think it would be greatly beneficial

[45:01] Yeah, actually

[45:03] There are a lot of challenges that we've encountered because of, again, the gaps in the MOU. So we feel sometimes it doesn't have any teeth, so we couldn't really

[45:16] Ask for them to comply because it's not in the MOU. And if you feel that this is the right time, which

[45:25] Seems to be the right time. These also the time for us to be able to ask them to put all the

[45:36] things that are in the AB 126 that relates to charter school accountability.

[45:47] Yeah, because, I mean, when we first drafted the MOU, we didn't know what we didn't know. And so after we've been through this process for the past half decade or so, you know, now we know what we're doing kind of

[46:02] You can put more meaningful things in the information

[46:06] So at that time, then we can

[46:10] include the conditions that were not before that we know now we should implement, you know, employ

[46:19] So to what Michelle is saying is hopefully we would appreciate that staff would lean in make sure we get that before Tuesday. Yeah, and there's been some changes with AB 126 that are pretty significant. Not so much on the county offices side of how they have to administer it, but certainly on the audit side. And I would feel better

[46:42] going into this potential renewal, making sure that both parties are going in with their eyes wide open as to what the expectations of the board

[46:53] It's significant enough that if it's clearly spelled out. Then I think

[47:01] We're agreeing to it together. We know what the expectations are. And then we're going to go with our best feet forward. And I think Courtney can help us with the languages. This isn't

[47:12] a pre-approval

[47:14] This is what we're going to expect if a renewal is granted.

[47:21] What about the possibility, because it is next week that we're having the first hearing. What about the possibility of working on the MOU side of it and having that

[47:33] presented in the October meeting

[47:36] So that we absorb that we have questions, so on and so forth. And then perhaps ultimately this just suggestion. Ultimately, they come

[47:47] together in November

[47:49] Because I don't expect everybody to redraft an MOU by Tuesday right right

[47:58] I don't want you to do that

[48:00] But what do you think about that?

[48:03] This is a workshop, so we're come up with ideas. So my question would be for legal on what that would look like. Certainly, we had an MOU that was drafted

[48:14] by other than, you know, Lozano Smith

[48:17] We clearly will be going with Elizano Smith to come up with the template. I'm sure they've done it for other renewal processes. It's probably already work being done on many MOUs right now in light of the changes with AB 126, so she can probably start us out

[48:33] I just don't know about the open dialogue of what that MOU would be in a public board meeting. So I'm going to defer to Courtney on what her advice

[48:38] Yeah. Yeah. So, and I don't know if everyone recalls though, back, and it seems like this was, it was actually quite a while ago, when we reviewed the board bylaw on charter schools, the board actually did approve a template MOU at that point in time.

[48:54] To be applicable to any new charter schools.

[48:58] And so that would be a starting point. I will say, candidly, though, that obviously.

[49:02] Predates all of the AB 126 changes, so I would want to review that significantly.

[49:09] But this is a negotiation, as Trustee Cuoman said, yes, but it is a public document. This is different than, like, labor negotiations.

[49:16] or negotiations and settlement and litigation. Like, this can happen openly.

[49:20] And so it would be totally appropriately to have it at an open.

[49:24] session, that would be the only way, actually, for this board to discuss it, would be during an open session.

[49:29] And so it would be appropriate to agendize that just for discussion of, like, we could provide a draft template.

[49:36] And to get feedback. Obviously, there's another party involved, elite, and so there would need to be sufficient time to make sure that they can also review it, and that they have their legal counsel, so that it would need to be built into it.

[49:49] But it certainly can be discussed at an open session.

[49:55] I think Dana's idea is good once they present on

[50:00] Wednesday

[50:01] Yeah.

[50:02] I also want to open the MOU and we have, you know

[50:07] things we want to negotiate in the MOU, and

[50:08] Yeah.

[50:11] brought up on October's meeting.

[50:12] Yeah, I think that's a good plan. It looks like there's a consensus.

[50:15] Generally, we're not taking action or anything, but it sounds like consensus to have them, oh you brought in October, and then I can work, obviously, with.

[50:22] SCO, the SCO team, on getting that together and making sure I account for any of their.

[50:30] Okay, great.

[50:33] The other reason

[50:34] That can be a part of that. Yeah

[50:39] Sorry, was that a question?

[50:43] No, she was just saying

[50:46] to be part of the response.

[50:47] Oh, perfect. Okay. So that's the last slide. Now here's do you have any questions or any comments?

[50:54] Uh, how would you all like to go? You can just.

[50:57] Here's a question

[50:58] You all tell me he goes first.

[51:04] You said there was oversight changes in the trailer bill. What what are the changes?

[51:11] That the trailer bill had.

[51:12] So most of them are as to, as Michelle Henson mentioned, related to the audit side of things and how the charter school needs to complete their audits.

[51:20] Um, so it's not a significant, oh, go ahead.

[51:23] I see Michelle looking like she wants to jump in.

[51:27] But there were also some attendance reporting changes right and oversight. Say, for example, the they should be

[51:37] posting their agenda. So it's more the Brown Act

[51:41] And also

[51:44] What are the other employee salaries. Yeah, employees publicly available. Right.

[51:53] Can we get a list of what the changes are, like a clear list of what has changed? It's not difficult, those changes. Courtney Lozano Smith came out with a great podcast. Here's your plug. And

[52:09] Also, they had a short legal brief on it. So I'm sure that she can work with the superintendent's office to get that to you all.

[52:13] We can make sure we circulate that to you all for sure. Thank you, Michelle.

[52:19] Thank you for listening to our podcast. It's always good to hear.

[52:23] When folks listen to this.

[52:25] If you don't know, we do have a podcast, so, you know.

[52:28] If you don't get enough of me, you can hear some of my colleagues.

[52:33] Okay, I know there were some other hands and other questions, so I want to make sure we… and or discussion that folks wanted to have.

[52:38] Anyone else?

[52:41] Okay, great. Well, then I'll just end by saying, and we're a little over time on this, but just…

[52:46] Again, the public hearing will be next week for Elite, so I think that's a great opportunity to come with questions and or comments to share with Elite.

[52:54] And then I'm hearing that we'll have an October meeting about the MOU.

[52:59] And then action at a later date, unless there's an extension there, so.

[53:04] With that, we're going to shift over to interdistrict transfer appeal process review.

[53:10] So the idea here is we sort of have 3 questions that we came up with.

[53:17] Um, and, you know, President Sharp, Superintendent Parr, please chime in. But the idea was hopefully to get you kind of.

[53:24] I mean, maybe blocked it all out after.

[53:26] The last one, but to get you thinking again about the process.

[53:30] Um, and go through each of these questions, and really, at this point, I'm gonna sit back. I mean, I have some thoughts, so I do wanna share.

[53:36] some of my thoughts, but this is really an opportunity for.

[53:39] Obviously, the trustees to share their perspective, but you've got the SCO team here as well, and the goal and idea with having the SCO team here.

[53:48] Is because they are so involved on the administrative side of things is to have a dialogue here and back and forth and.

[53:53] I think it really would be a great opportunity for you all to discuss amongst each other.

[53:58] thoughts, and so on and so forth. So before we dive into the questions, um, number one, President Sharpe or Superintendent Pard, did you have anything else you wanted to add?

[54:07] Okay, I'm seeing Chaniel shaking hands.

[54:10] Okay, so question number one, again, this is really at this point, you all just engage in your discussion and whatever order you would like to.

[54:18] Um, what did we learn from this year's appeals?

[54:21] And the idea is, let's talk about kind of what worked well.

[54:25] And what did this year's experience teach us that we hadn't quite anticipated, or maybe something that was new that happened that.

[54:32] Wasn't something that.

[54:35] Maybe had happened before that you all want to discuss and maybe talk through, so.

[54:39] With that, who would like to start?

[54:45] I actually would like to start with

[54:47] Making a statement about appreciating every person in this space that had anything to do with the IDA process

[54:56] Because we learned a lot. We learned that we have to have good, clear communication with our district.

[55:03] We learned that we have to be really clear about our communication with those that are seeking an IDEA.

[55:12] And we, in the end, after all of this, I feel like that last one that we had

[55:18] It was a celebration that we made it through. We learned along the way some things that we're going to do differently. And we also, I just had a conversation with Superintendent Aurelio

[55:30] Two days ago. When I did a tour of one of his campuses, we talked about the IDA process. And one of the things that he had mentioned is some of the things that they're doing internally. So I know that Dr. Shin, Dr. Pinpin, and Elena have done tremendous work with communicating with their staff

[55:48] From Vallejo with the superintendent's office. And we have a lot of good things to share with you today.

[55:55] Thank you. Yeah. For me and also Elena, it's that close collaboration with BCUSD that made things

[56:07] much smoother

[56:10] In BCUSD's willingness to really work with us. And I would like to thank the board because instead of the process being

[56:21] Condentious. It wasn't because our focus were on the students and the families.

[56:28] So that's what I appreciated.

[56:34] All right.

[56:36] So I will echo the appreciation of everyone involved.

[56:42] But I specifically want to appreciate my colleagues

[56:46] You demonstrated how you disagree on something respectful

[56:53] I think there's a lot of folks in Solano County

[56:56] from our model

[56:59] Human Courtney's prediction betting.

[57:00] Ah!

[57:03] I record these prediction, Betty. DraftKings are looking for you, Courtney.

[57:15] So I have a list of things to looking ahead, but in terms of

[57:20] Well, that worked the best I think we've ever done. And maybe it was partly, you know

[57:27] The we're in the trenches in the circumstances, and we had to do well, but I think more to the point, we all respect each other, even as we

[57:37] often disagree. So that was a really, really big deal and made the

[57:43] Strain of it, if you will, a little more tolerable

[57:49] And that interchanged allowed us to see different perspectives. We all come with our own particular perspective about issue

[57:59] Or issues

[58:01] But the way

[58:04] We are judiciously

[58:07] Talked among ourselves, we were able, I know I was able to see things from a different point of view.

[58:14] And I was glad for that, so I did go.

[58:18] Trustee B.

[58:25] Anybody else?

[58:26] I would love to hear staff. Elena was the one who was rapid fire in the front line. I would love to hear your thoughts on

[58:35] I think it was a better year than last year. I do have a big, big, big thank you to Erica and Amanda. So when I'm preparing all the files and the packets, they're my second eyes, and

[58:49] I am in and out of Erica's office because she has to schedule the hearings and

[58:56] We schedule the meetings and, you know, play around the calendar. So that was a very we worked together We grow together. So I think that's you have a very

[59:08] So that makes it a lot better.

[59:17] And I think she also had a relationship with

[59:32] And actually, I just want to add to that

[59:38] Because you could feel that there was trust between, at least from the VCUSD side, because once the packets are done

[59:47] We give them back to them for just a second look, just in case, you know they missed something, and at the same time, when the parents send the appeals to us, sometimes they add more documents that the home district has not seen

[1:00:04] But at least the home district is willing to take a second look and see. And then sometimes they would tell us, okay, we're going to release the students.

[1:00:13] Because we don't want the board to go through 50, 60 hearings, but at least, you know, there was that back and forth negotiation with them, but good intentions

[1:00:28] And VCUSD

[1:00:30] I think trust that we are just there for the students and not

[1:00:36] We just want everything to be given back to them.

[1:00:40] And I would say for me, what worked well unified did an amazing job. It was a complete sea change even from the year before, it was even better

[1:00:51] It was nice to have people that could answer questions right sitting in front of us as opposed to I wasn't the one who made the call, or whoever, you know, that was helpful, and it did feel like they

[1:01:03] really respected the process and it was more of a collaboration between everybody.

[1:01:09] It was really nice to have them here. Yes

[1:01:11] We have 21 requests and only 26.

[1:01:18] And is that because they were sent back information incomplete? No, because they qualified for a hearing, but

[1:01:33] One of the hearings was two students

[1:01:38] So 2026 board hearings, but but 27 students

[1:01:50] Anybody else for question one?

[1:01:53] Okay, Courtney, you want to go on too?

[1:01:54] Okay.

[1:01:56] Okay, so looking on to question number two.

[1:02:00] Looking ahead, what opportunities do we see to strengthen the appeals process from start to end?

[1:02:06] And this is both on the board level,

[1:02:09] and at the skull level, so meaning as things are coming in behind the scenes that maybe you all don't even know what's going on.

[1:02:18] Um, are there any kind of thoughts about things you do want to know?

[1:02:22] and or does the SCO team have any thoughts on maybe some process changes?

[1:02:28] So really kind of what, if anything, might.

[1:02:31] You all consider doing differently.

[1:02:33] Adding or exploring from a process perspective.

[1:02:38] Go ahead and take this one off for me, I would like to see the form that the parents filled out reworked

[1:02:45] There's some ambiguity as to whether are they in this grade, are they going into that grade. One of the parents themselves had written 2nd grade moving with an arrow going on to third grade. It was very clear what we were talking about. No one had to, you know, decide.

[1:02:59] what was going on. So I thought there were some changes to the form, and then

[1:03:04] without talking about stuff in closed session, there are certain themes that come up over and over and over again. I think it would be nice if we had a worksheet that we could share with whatever the district is. And did you call them? Why don't you just write that date down so we know everybody knows what happened, and we could eliminate a lot of the

[1:03:21] Well, did you know there was this school? Did you know that some of the questions that come over and over and over again, and I think it would be helpful. The parent would understand

[1:03:29] better what it's going through and then the district could more prove what they're doing or not doing

[1:03:35] And it would be easier that way. That was my initial.

[1:03:39] And also, we, at some point in time, we talked about having that checklist for the school district, and that would help them

[1:03:49] Help them and help us as well.

[1:03:55] Okay, so piggybacking on

[1:04:00] Let's see

[1:04:02] I think the number one thing from my mind is the experience of the parent.

[1:04:09] really could be improved and we have improved over the years. Don't get me wrong

[1:04:14] But they still walk in here. It's like a courtroom, right? And they really have no idea as they're sitting here, most of them have no idea that they're going to face

[1:04:25] like a cross-examination, and it's not even just a courtroom, it's appellate body, you know. So I really think we should… we could do more

[1:04:36] to communicate to them as they apply that this is what it's gonna you know I feel like when you… like, when you go into DMV and add little

[1:04:47] video of what you're going to go through, or you… oh, jury duty. This is what the jury does. It could be something like that, that we just send them a link to, or it could just be a list that they… out of the 27 hearings, right? Only maybe 2.

[1:05:03] Acted like they felt confident and I would say 50% of them were terrified.

[1:05:13] And that's that's problematic. So I, to me, the the more most important thing is to make the experience for the parent better. The second part of that is

[1:05:25] The translators are problems. I mean, I took four years of Spanish. I don't speak it out loud, but no, they're not

[1:05:35] There's things being lost in translation and we don't really allow for sufficient time for that in the process. So whether a policy needs to be changed about how much time is allotted for someone

[1:05:49] Who's having a translator, or what that the translator actually has to translate what was said

[1:05:56] But it wasn't great. I would say that's an area that we could really improve on. They need to be a certified translator too for recording proceedings. This is a court proceeding. This is an appellate board

[1:06:09] So they need to be able to understand that type of language and stuff, and not just

[1:06:16] be translating

[1:06:18] The summary.

[1:06:20] You know, they have to translate. I mean, I'm sorry to laugh, but yeah, the person translating in at least two circumstances was

[1:06:30] kind of

[1:06:32] calculating in their own mind. There's more than summary. It was like, I'm going to analyze and decide something

[1:06:38] And then say it differently, right? And with good intention, they're wanting to move it along, they're wanting the person to be represented, but it didn't feel great.

[1:06:49] And I would agree with Dana on both those points. Yeah, it didn't feel great. So, and then back to Amy's and my colleague's point here

[1:07:00] Yeah, we should do better with understanding. I don't know that we can demand, demanding that the district has done these steps that we asked them about every single time

[1:07:12] Every time

[1:07:14] They're not a demand, more of a this is our suggestion. This is how you can make it… I would like to hear from you and for us. I mean, after 13 years, I would like to make present to them that they themselves

[1:07:29] will benefit

[1:07:31] By doing this, this, and this and this

[1:07:34] They'll want to comprehend, because we're not being adversarial. We want it to be a win-win. And on top of that

[1:07:43] I see more often than not that the parents, once a decision is made, they sit there and they don't really know what happened, they don't know what the next steps are, and somewhere there needs to be an explanation

[1:07:57] about an approval and a denial so that when that decision comes down, they'll understand what that really means.

[1:08:08] Because then we've been good about running and telling them, you know, do this, do that and the other. The district has not been that

[1:08:18] That

[1:08:20] Oh, I don't know the word to use

[1:08:23] But they've only really started coming because they've seen us run up to give direction and they should be that should be in the packet when they, the appeal comes to us

[1:08:36] that these are the possible outcomes, and those outcomes mean this is this and that is that. So when they come, they know what you're doing a sheet or something, a half sheet

[1:08:51] Your appeal has been granted. These are the what's going to happen. This appeal has been denied. This is what's going to happen next. That they can have in front of them, too. Yeah.

[1:09:01] But our staff probably would give them. Okay.

[1:09:11] That's what staff do have any suggestions for how you think we could do it differently better actually and Courtney, correct me if I'm wrong, because when we were looking at the appeals process in the website

[1:09:26] Didn't you mention that there's a need to review what's in there? You know the Ed code mentioned

[1:09:35] in the appeals process

[1:09:37] Am I correct

[1:09:39] Sorry, wait, do you mind asking the question one more time? Review…

[1:09:42] Oh, yeah. So, remember we had this discussion about reviewing the appeals process that's in the website.

[1:09:53] And you mentioned that there are certain ed code sections that were not

[1:09:58] Oh…

[1:09:59] exactly updated

[1:10:00] I see what you're saying, yes, yes, yes, sorry. Um, are you referring to… I think it board bylaw, actually, has the incorrect legal citations.

[1:10:08] Um, so there's a couple of citations that I have noted.

[1:10:11] That it's just like the the law itself is.

[1:10:14] Correct, is this what you're referring to, Doctor Pinpin?

[1:10:18] Yes

[1:10:19] Okay, um, there's, like, some of the subdivisions are off, and so that was a suggestion.

[1:10:24] To at least at a minimum, just clean that up.

[1:10:29] Right.

[1:10:30] Yeah.

[1:10:32] Oh.

[1:10:34] Oh, no.

[1:10:35] Can you hear me?

[1:10:36] Jennifer has a question.

[1:10:37] Oh, okay.

[1:10:39] On the informing

[1:10:43] Parents, if the board decides that's a need, we can certainly support creating documents. I know it's an overwhelming process for parents and

[1:10:52] and letterhead, and lots of information. It's not easy to digest, and so we can certainly support

[1:10:59] Creating at a glance information so they can kind of glance and okay, this is what I want, and then go a little deeper instead of flooding all of that. So we'd be happy to support the staff with the logistics of it, but making it kind of a very user-friendly guide

[1:11:20] And I don't know if it would be us or the

[1:11:24] Well, it is Vallejo, but someone from our staff could tell them like on their reason for denial, it says met quota

[1:11:31] Can we move that from the form state it a different way, but when it says met quota, that's the only reason why you were denied, and we're looking at it like, that's the only reason why they're denied. Right. What does that mean

[1:11:47] Yeah, where does that

[1:11:49] And there's so many changes that they could do and they could be fine therefore I don't know if it'd be the staff to talk to them about that or not, but I think even as a parent where you're trying to move your child from one school to another, the reason they're telling you can't

[1:12:04] Yeah.

[1:12:08] it just incomplete, and you've been denied, but they don't tell them why, but the requirements

[1:12:21] So they said there was going

[1:12:25] Yeah.

[1:12:34] And if they could standardize their forms, because sometimes it's via that form. Sometimes it's an email. So if they could just standardize it because it's confusing for us, for the parents and for the board.

[1:12:49] And we also noticed that some of the denials, the first denial and the pet denial were like denial same day. Or the appeal is earlier than the initial denial

[1:13:05] Wow.

[1:13:07] If I could also this came up a few times. I think

[1:13:12] If we could do a better job of explaining to the parents the significance of the documents they're sending us, so that if they're sending it to us

[1:13:21] as a picture on the back of a napkin, that's not great evidence to support, you know, we really need to then make that clear and maybe they don't have the opportunity. Maybe we should find a way to give them the opportunity

[1:13:36] But really, they did not understand or know that not being able that they think they're just checking off a list rather than we're trying to read this. So that was another little thing that came up a few times that the school district

[1:13:51] They could be instrumental in that when they're telling them how to put together their evidences, if you will, that

[1:14:00] There's a standard and they need to explain how that standard can be worked through their evidences, how they can

[1:14:10] Right. So it's okay to welcome someone

[1:14:25] I know a question

[1:14:27] President Sharp would ask often is, did the other school contact you, or did you go to a meeting? So maybe that could be on the form. So if we know if other schools are coaching students from an area

[1:14:42] I think that's a whole nother topic.

[1:14:51] But I would be interested to know, when we run into that over and over and over again, where it was Napa, and what is our

[1:14:57] It's my understanding that's a Ballejos fight. Pellet. If there's anything we can do, because that was a hot mess.

[1:15:07] Used to be Venetia.

[1:15:14] School board meetings, yeah.

[1:15:18] I had a question about the form after the fact. Would that be done in conjunction with the district? So is there some collaboration there? So it

[1:15:29] Kind of the warm handoff, or is it just a form to

[1:15:35] An information form as opposed to, okay. You are, this is the name of the person that you'll be contacting because some of that did come up at the end when the BCUSC staff would talk to the parents, I'll be in touch or something

[1:15:52] But is there a possibility that that form could be

[1:15:57] a little bit more instructive on next steps right on the form

[1:16:04] Yeah.

[1:16:06] So obviously denial or

[1:16:15] We can reply to all and if it's been approved and we say that didn't check enough

[1:16:25] We do that, but does the district

[1:16:31] As they indicated that parents are calling back and saying hey

[1:16:41] So we are doing that right now, and we can send a letter via mail

[1:16:52] Electronic

[1:16:55] Yeah, so within

[1:17:01] But Teresa, you're suggesting that when they leave here that night, the former shell say they should leave but it also have that information on that? I think it would be a wonderful opportunity that we

[1:17:13] That we just handwrite it in that there is a form set up that these are the next steps and here is the approval path here is the denial path and here is the warm handoff to the next person. Yeah, I think that's really smart.

[1:17:35] I don't know the next steps

[1:17:38] Can I offer one more suggestion to it as we're looking at all the communication and thinking as we evaluate all of our pieces, it might serve us well to think about fourth grade reading level for everything that we write for simplicity. Sometimes we get

[1:17:58] Pulled into Ed Code speak and collegiate speak, and if we

[1:18:04] write the information and then do a second pass for a fourth grade reading level. I think that makes it a little more accessible for our families.

[1:18:11] And that's also good with the interpreters. Yeah, the translators, interpreters, whatever for them to understand that too. That's why I agree they should be certified, because they would understand that.

[1:18:25] I still like the video idea, yeah, I think so too minimum, like whatever we'll put it as a picture of what you're walking into

[1:18:36] She felt like she'd done something wrong. It was awful.

[1:18:49] You make everything pretty, Jennifer, so it wouldn't be scary. Some cartoons, nice fonts, yeah

[1:18:59] Anybody else for question two?

[1:19:05] We started doing this, but as I'm thinking about a poor soul sitting here completely shaking, crying, whatever

[1:19:06] Okay.

[1:19:13] I guess it's a question. Are we making clear to them that their immigration status not a factor or anything like that?

[1:19:23] That is a good point.

[1:19:28] I think I should have been more terrifying. Maybe that's part of the initial

[1:19:38] I'm okay, you're okay.

[1:19:41] Did you hear that, Courtney?

[1:19:42] I heard the question, are we making them clear? But that was, was there more to it?

[1:19:47] Are we making it clear that immigration status is not a factor?

[1:19:50] Or is there more after that?

[1:19:53] Okay, I don't think that that's been made clear to folks, but I'm sure that that's something.

[1:19:59] Because I was going to recap kind of the… I was writing notes.

[1:20:02] the big subject matters I heard, um, and maybe I can address that one when we get there, is, like, one of the things I heard is.

[1:20:08] The overall experience for the parents, and I think this is.

[1:20:13] Before what they can expect during what can they expect and what can they expect after. And so I think this is sort of a before and during.

[1:20:21] And maybe some sort of worksheet or something that is provided to them that it's made clear to them.

[1:20:26] That that's not a factor, um, I think that that would be something that can be contemplated.

[1:20:31] In that, and I'm thinking almost of, and I heard, I think.

[1:20:35] Jennifer, you said, like, at a glance, I like that kind of idea at a glance. Something that's really digestible for folks to understand.

[1:20:43] Um, I know they do it, like, in the court system sometimes shows you, like, how to file something, and it's like a step-by-step, very clear.

[1:20:50] Um, not in legalese, and so I kind of foresee something like that, maybe, as it's something that's provided to everyone, so everyone is getting the same information, because we also want to make sure that.

[1:20:59] Certain folks aren't being treated differently, and so it's the same information and that that something is incorporated in there.

[1:21:04] As to immigration status not being, you know, at all considered or a factor in this decision-making process, I think makes a lot of sense.

[1:21:13] Trustee Cohen-Thompson, I see you.

[1:21:17] Courtney or give that introduction on what's about to happen

[1:21:26] Hmm.

[1:21:27] That can be a time that you could mention because you're the legal person that immigrate all the information that's

[1:21:31] has no immigration factors. It doesn't apply to anything for immigration

[1:21:37] coming from you as you're explaining what's about to happen

[1:21:40] During the hearing.

[1:21:43] the appeal off, but it's this and it's that and the other

[1:21:47] would be a good time to put that in, not necessarily for the trustees, but from you as a part of the overall

[1:21:56] process if you will and the information that is going back and forth and just simple what you just said

[1:22:00] Yeah. Yeah.

[1:22:04] May I

[1:22:05] I think we need to be considerate in terms of how we approach that because we also want to make sure that we're not.

[1:22:09] saying it to just some people and not, it would need to be part of a standardized script, I think, that's provided to everyone.

[1:22:15] So that it doesn't seem like we're, you know.

[1:22:18] making any assumptions about folks, but yeah.

[1:22:23] When you're explaining the process, that's a

[1:22:26] Yeah.

[1:22:30] Mm-hmm.

[1:22:31] I think that's too late because there will be people that have self-selected prior to that before if they have that concern, they may not even step forward. So I think

[1:22:46] That is too late in the process. I think it needs to be stated up and the school district could do that.

[1:22:55] Right, when they're telling them about the process of the appeal, that can be a part of that information that they're giving.

[1:23:04] What's going to be happening. So the school district. I would say that that they they should do that. That should be a part of them.

[1:23:15] We can just

[1:23:17] Make mention. And it's everybody. All right, because everybody's looking. We're online. People are looking.

[1:23:24] And they're not understanding

[1:23:26] somebody might be wanting to know, like you said, don't come forward because

[1:23:33] They're not sure of what's going on, that they don't want to right exactly. So the school district, that should be something that they should make very clear. Sure. I'm not feeling particularly comfortable at the

[1:23:48] what could be our role and our responsibility and communicating to the folks that come before us to an East So that's

[1:24:00] In response to that, I just realized though that I'm saying, oh, we got to take better care of the poor ladies are crying, blah, blah, blah, and be sensitive and all that kind of stuff. But guess what? There are some folks who show up who really need to understand

[1:24:15] No, they don't get what they want just because they want it, right? And the sense that I didn't realize that I moved somewhere around my kid had to go to that school and they're sort of entitled, it's not really the right

[1:24:31] fashionable word that's not exactly but so there's the pendulum has to swing the other way, too, in terms of communicating with

[1:24:39] Yeah, if you live, the default is if you live here, that's where your kid goes right before they show up here, just think once again, they just had to check this up another. So they got their information from a cocktail party. Right, like we made this decision to rent this house

[1:24:58] Because we wanted our child to go here when that was not the right information. Yeah

[1:25:05] But also you buy in the city, your kid is going to go to that school, right? And then, well, anyway

[1:25:12] I'm not gonna get them.

[1:25:13] So before we move on to the — oh, go ahead.

[1:25:18] Oh, go ahead, please.

[1:25:24] The school got closed

[1:25:26] That's not what happened. But that could come up. And now they're being told, no, you're going to go to this school now. That's not really what I meant

[1:25:45] I know what you meant that I hear her too with the vast majority of my thoughts are on those poor single moms or whatever that don't really speak the language, that didn't understand the process, that no one held their hand

[1:26:00] And they show up in this in front of this body. You know, that's the main thing. I think we could do better

[1:26:07] But I think we could also do better with the people who

[1:26:11] I think they just get it, Hosea

[1:26:18] Although I would not hear for this process, I heard a lot about it, and thank you all for all of the time and effort and energy that you put into it.

[1:26:30] So I believe that this here tonight sets an example for how we can continue to improve this process, having a board study session in which we are reflecting and communicating and collaborating and refining it together

[1:26:45] And it really sets the tone for the district. And I've had the fortunate opportunity since I've been on board to to engage in a debrief session with Vallejo Unified staff that's responsible for the interdistrict transfers, along with Dr. Pinpin, as well as Elena

[1:27:01] And it was a very fruitful process, just like this one we discussed what worked well, what were some challenges, what were some of our learnings, as well as next steps. And we will continue to engage in that process with them. But I realize in this space, we also need to do that with other districts

[1:27:19] That are impacted, not just Elena Unified, we know that they are the biggest

[1:27:24] Partner in this, but others as well. So the learning that we had with Vallejo in this is that we also need to take a look at the data and the outcome.

[1:27:36] So when we put in this amount of energy and effort, and we understand the rationale for why they have put this in place, and it is really to ensure that they maintain their enrollment, and we want to support them in that effort, of course, at the same time, we also know that

[1:27:53] Sometimes we don't yield the desired outcome no matter how hard we work at that. So often we know that when parents don't get their way in the end, they don't just resign to that fact. They find other ways, workarounds

[1:28:10] to get to wherever they want to get to. And I know from my past experience, having been in other districts that

[1:28:16] They either the ones who can afford it will go to private schools. The ones who cannot afford it may go to charter schools. Or they may just simply use another address to get to where they want to get to. So there are many different workarounds that parents may find

[1:28:31] So we left the meeting with Vallejo Unified asking for clear next steps to be data analysis, for them to take a look at their enrollment information. For all of the students that were denied those transfers

[1:28:47] Where do they end up? Did they end up in your schools

[1:28:50] How many ended up in those schools?

[1:28:54] Can we have an interview with those students and families to hear about their experiences if they did remain in those schools

[1:29:02] So that's going to be our next steps. Follow up with them. I had the opportunity to let the superintendent as well add the assistant superintendent know that we were having this study session tonight, and they were very, very pleased to hear that, that we are taking an active interest

[1:29:17] and wanting to improve our partnership and processes, and so they volunteer to call me if they needed to come tonight, and but we let them know that they did not need to be here, but that we will follow up with them afterwards with anything that came out of this that would again strengthen our partnership and

[1:29:33] Help support them to yield the desired outcomes that they want. And if that's not the case. Then perhaps they also need to pivot in some ways. They have limited amount of staff and energy and resources as well. And I understand that they want to capture their enrollment

[1:29:50] But if this is not the way to do it, then

[1:29:54] How can they also make adjustments to make that happen? So I asked the board to continue to engage in this type of study session and continue to think with us and reflect with us about how we can support our district

[1:30:09] In order to, again, improve their outcomes. And so we are also committing in this space that we will continue this close collaboration with not Chipoleo, but also we realize that the niche, let's say in certain instances

[1:30:24] Once we appeal, once we approve a decision here that they were not notified in enough time.

[1:30:34] to meet their timelines of accepting those students. So we have some students who actually spaces were not available because by the time he got back to them

[1:30:43] They were full. Yeah, they were waitlisted. So again, another learning that we also need to connect with those receiving school insurance and set up a close collaboration with their leadership to ensure that

[1:30:58] We are connecting the dots for one another and making sure all of us are doing our due diligence to better support our families and our students. And yeah, continue to work in partnership.

[1:31:10] Thank you for that. So should we have a form from the receiving school as part of the packet if they've said they want, oh yeah, we've already been accepted, but we don't have a document to show that they've been accepted. That's

[1:31:25] Should that be included? That would be wonderful. And of course, we can't make another district do anything, right? But it is relationship and partnership building, yes, and the information that we provide to parents once they're coming here

[1:31:40] to let them know, be prepared. Get the receiving document from the school that you intend to

[1:31:46] a go-to, and then it'll be a… we will have it as part of our package, so we know how to follow up. That's a great idea with this new packet that we're going to try to put together with all this information. That's when they're in our hands.

[1:32:02] Yes, yes, that's a great idea. Right? Yes, and we have those letters.

[1:32:09] Oh, where do fine. They're accepted, but that's not how it works. But that way you guys can follow up

[1:32:22] with Benisha or any other school

[1:32:25] Actually, when we had our discussion. When we had our discussion with Vallejo, because our deadlines are affected by their deadlines.

[1:32:38] So if they adhere to their deadlines, then we won't have to worry about

[1:32:47] Bleeding into the summer, and of course we want to make sure that you have your your summer vacation. So, because what happened, at least for for last year, was that this is their deadline, and they kept on moving it

[1:33:03] And when they move it, then our deadlines are because we have that 30-day So And in our discussion, they were thinking of their planning on shortening the time

[1:33:18] So instead of the end of March, yeah, they're thinking of doing it either the 1st or the middle of so that

[1:33:29] when they appealed to the county, then that gives us enough time to be able to work on their packets

[1:33:38] And at the same time, our suggestion to them is if they could work with their technology. Because right now

[1:33:48] They're not

[1:33:49] effectively able to notify the students who need to go through the interdistrict transfer. And what happens, some parents only get to know about it in May

[1:34:01] when it's already too late

[1:34:03] And at the same time

[1:34:09] If you notice, we had an issue

[1:34:13] With one of two of the students where there was no

[1:34:19] initial denial. They only have the second appeal, the appeal denial

[1:34:26] And thank you, Courtney, for being there to guide us on what the Ed Code says about that, about exhausting all resources

[1:34:38] But we were giving them some suggestions on maybe they could work with their technology

[1:34:45] So that the parents won't be able to do the the appeal

[1:34:52] without being denied first for their first the initial application, and that would make our lives easier instead of us trying to figure out like, oh, poor Elena to figure out like, oh, how come there's only one denial

[1:35:08] And things like that. We want to adhere to and code, but they just have to

[1:35:14] improve on their system. So basically anyone could appeal without having a

[1:35:25] First, you're very sweet. I don't love the word suggest.

[1:35:33] I got you there. That's not a suggestion. If they want us to take them seriously, they need to take themselves seriously. We have learnings. They had a lot of learning this year and they should be incorporating this their case

[1:35:50] So you can suggest all you want

[1:35:54] I suggest that we use a firmer word. Use the word consent. But turning to your comments, thank you so much. That's very meaningful. I do have, first, I love the idea that we're going to get real data from them and they're going to analyze that

[1:36:09] And actually, we're talking about BCUSD. I realized we didn't introduce the

[1:36:15] assistant superintendent for background, you know they showed up. So Valeo doesn't show. Okay, so they showed up. So I think that's interesting. But back to what you're saying. So here's the issue for me with the data, and everybody knows I asked every time

[1:36:34] How many came in, how much… so they said two, three years ago, they had 1,000 applications.

[1:36:42] Two years ago they had 900. This last year they were going to cut it at 850.

[1:36:47] They came to us in advance telling us about how we had to support them, and they got all the politics involved, got everybody saying how we're a problem because we're not helping them, blah, blah blah. We had 27

[1:37:03] Of those appeals come to us.

[1:37:06] They ended up by their own numbers, letting what they were trying to only let 100 go.

[1:37:13] I'm sorry, a thousand though, right? They were trying to let 1% go. They ended up letting over 6% go.

[1:37:24] They made that decision, not us. So I feel like they should own up to that

[1:37:29] And I feel like that data should reflect

[1:37:33] We were responsible for

[1:37:36] A tiny percentage one way or the other

[1:37:39] It was big for us because it's the most we ever had and it impacted our schedules and our lives and my

[1:37:47] my diet, since I only ate the one kind of salad forever. But

[1:37:55] I think that I really am craving an honest assessment of how successful they really were at this 1% number

[1:38:05] And what what changed that right or what do we know what number they're looking for this year?

[1:38:12] They want 1% again?

[1:38:14] That's his his mantra. And he can do that all they're looking at dollars. It's a worshiping book. They're looking at the dollars. Of course they are, but they gave away the 5 million, not we didn't. But they don't understand. We didn't. We gave away $27

[1:38:31] $270,000, and yet they fill the room with people saying that we're the problem, we're not the problem

[1:38:39] So

[1:38:40] Let's have a realistic discussion

[1:38:43] Superintendent, board, let's have a realistic discussion amongst yourselves

[1:38:49] about how realistic the 1% is

[1:38:53] And how to achieve that 1%.

[1:38:56] Yeah.

[1:38:58] They made the decision to live.

[1:39:00] $6 million out, which they absolutely had the right to do. I support it 100%.

[1:39:05] But

[1:39:08] Not to be politically realistic

[1:39:10] And the data really does matter. So I'm anxious to see

[1:39:14] Yes, and it would behoove them to do that analysis and make the adjustments necessary as they have to shrink their staffing. They don't have the capacity to continue at this rate if it's not yielding the outcome that they are want

[1:39:34] The thought I had may not even be relevant now, but back was talking is that I think some of the parents, when they come, they're not even in front of the Elenian High School District. So the first time they come in front of a board

[1:39:49] is in front of us. So that's another kind of giving them information about what to expect, because the first appeal their first denial denial was all in writing. Did they have to come to appeal and it's in person

[1:40:05] And then I wonder, why don't they do it in person?

[1:40:20] Yeah, but then it's different than sitting in front of a person. 100%. Yes, it is very different. You have to say, so, as we sit here and absorb all of that

[1:40:31] Angstin, Joy and all the different things. In this case, Vallejo City Unified Board

[1:40:38] Do they even know what was happening?

[1:40:42] And as additional information often comes up while they're sitting there in front of you that's not in writing. So

[1:40:51] That makes a difference right when you're making a decision. Well, I think their first appeal is just a paper screening.

[1:40:58] of the application, and that's done by their staff and then it's sent back and then I think even the second appeal, they don't appear in front of the board it's just another paper to the board yeah but the board does a paper screening, too.

[1:41:15] They don't… some of these people, this is the first time, like you said, they had never been in an appellate room, but my question is, does the board is the board observed 160 times last year

[1:41:27] The board granted an appeal

[1:41:31] All right, that means all the other times they did not

[1:41:35] So they did not, I don't know how many they denied. They denied a lot.

[1:41:40] But

[1:41:42] I mean, we're really engaged in this, and I'm wondering if they're really understanding just a list of names, and they go check check or what is it? 160 is a lot

[1:41:55] The 340 that were denied or whatever that number is, that's more

[1:42:00] And more importantly, what are they doing to make their parents want to keep their students at school? Maybe if we can have that conversation, or maybe I can. Yes.

[1:42:16] Anybody else with question too? Question Courtney.

[1:42:18] Okay. Okay. So we're going to move on to question three. What should we prioritize as we look ahead to next year?

[1:42:26] And I was just going to recap what I think I heard, kind of in four or five buckets, um, and so it sounds like this may be just sort of a recap.

[1:42:33] Um, but I think if you can provide some

[1:42:35] feedback to staff in particular about what to prioritize.

[1:42:39] I heard, number one, some sort of, like, worksheet or cover sheet, maybe, that comes to the board with each packet.

[1:42:45] Clearly identifying what.

[1:42:47] grade the student is going into, what school they want to go into, some just very basic factual.

[1:42:52] Questions to be answered, and the same questions that you kind of have been asking every time.

[1:42:57] Um, the big… this is a big one, sort of the experience for the parents. I know that's a.

[1:43:02] Before, during, and afters, there's a lot of components to that.

[1:43:07] Um, I heard another big one was.

[1:43:10] improving upon the translation.

[1:43:12] Getting a certified translator.

[1:43:14] uh, making sure that that process is airtight, and what does that also look like when there is a translator in terms of the 2 minutes and the 10 minutes.

[1:43:25] Another big bucket was sort of just the relationship with the districts.

[1:43:29] Now that we've gone through this, I heard not making necessarily requests, but

[1:43:34] collaborating on…

[1:43:36] process and things that the board would expect to see.

[1:43:40] Um, and what does that look like in the continued collaboration, which it sounds like you've got… I know Dr. Shin and Dr. Lilibeth already did… have been engaging in that, and I'm sure others in the room have as well.

[1:43:50] Um, and then this one, I think, was just a smaller one, but also the board.

[1:43:54] bylaw, making some amendments to that, maybe even just from the citation perspective, but as you go through this process, do you think there's anything else that you want to add there? So that's kind of… those are the five categories that I heard.

[1:44:05] Um, if there's others I missed, please share those, but.

[1:44:08] What would you all like to see prioritized over the next? Doesn't mean that they all can't happen, but what do you… what would you like to see as a priority for the next year?

[1:44:20] things we talked about and use the word instead of suggest expectations. What this board expects expectations is a good word for educators. Expectations

[1:44:36] My priority would definitely be the experience of parents. I think everything else will flow from that if the parents have a good experience. Whether they win or lose. Yeah.

[1:44:47] Courtney, on my end, I

[1:44:48] Anyone else?

[1:44:50] I think if we could update the policy as soon as possible.

[1:44:57] Elena would like to see the

[1:44:58] To update policies?

[1:45:00] The bylaws

[1:45:02] Yeah. Oh yeah, I mean, they would need to go to the board. The board would need to review. I mean, there's the board there.

[1:45:07] Like, you all can have this, like, Sco can have internal.

[1:45:10] protocols, right? I like to call them sort of internal protocols, checklists, whatever.

[1:45:15] And then the board bylaw is going to be the Board's bylaw, so the board would need to take that to the board.

[1:45:21] agenda and review it and make any edits. So if there's any edits there, that's really gonna be a board thing. Um, so I like to think of those as sort of two components, is what staffs kind of internal protocols that you want to revisit, and then what's the board's.

[1:45:33] bylaws. Does that make sense?

[1:45:39] But of course, with your guidance, right? Because we're not really familiar.

[1:45:41] Oh, yeah. Yes, of course.

[1:45:43] Yeah.

[1:45:48] Thank you.

[1:45:49] Anyone else?

[1:45:50] collaboration with the districts, but I found it very helpful here during the briefing on their policy changes. So any updates to their policy changes ahead of any

[1:46:05] Work that we do with the families would be helpful

[1:46:10] That's a good one.

[1:46:12] Okay, anything else?

[1:46:17] Well, I'll say for sure it's the experience of the parents and the students to the extent the students are here.

[1:46:24] And I think some of you have heard me say this, so when I'm from Venetian Unified, like, you could not go into the grocery store in the orange section if

[1:46:34] Perchance we had decided to move Algebra 1 from 0 period right?

[1:46:40] There would be 500 people in overflow and everything else if we're making some broad adjustment that slightly impacted these students lives, right?

[1:46:51] The 27 students that came before us, we changed their life. And for better or worse, I mean, that had a real impact, that decision. So to the extent that we can make it more comfortable and more respectful for them

[1:47:06] So even if it doesn't go their way, they don't feel like the world is against them. I think that to me, that's the most important

[1:47:26] Okay.

[1:47:27] Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none.

[1:47:28] Okay, so before we move on, anything else that anyone wanted to share, um, as to interdistrict transfers? And we're gonna move on to the last topic.

[1:47:35] Okay. Seeing none.

[1:47:39] Okay, so the final topic is going to be trustee questions on Board Agenda.

[1:47:44] I do have two slides that I'm gonna go over, but before we kind of talk into the process, I'm going to turn it over to Superintendent and Parr.

[1:47:51] Um, to kind of provide an introduction to this topic and sort of her rationale for wanting to bring this to the trustees.

[1:48:00] Wow

[1:48:02] 2 years ago, when I was a trustee for Fairfield-Sassoon

[1:48:06] We had a process that we were trained when we came in as a trustee

[1:48:12] We want to make sure that you have

[1:48:15] The answers to your questions. And we want to make sure that we're giving you accurate information.

[1:48:21] So they had a whole process that we went through where we were going to review the packets, ask

[1:48:26] questions in advance if

[1:48:28] We had questions to ask in advance. We can also ask questions during the board meeting if

[1:48:35] after hearing a presentation, something organically came up, a question came up. You needed clarification. But there was always an understanding that

[1:48:44] I may not get an answer to that question, depending on what I'm asking, depending on whether or not they have the information, depending on whether or not there's a couple of people that need to consult and communicate to make sure that we're giving

[1:48:57] accurate information. So we understood that we knew that. And coming here, one of the things that I noticed, and it really had to do a lot with some of the presentations that we do around

[1:49:10] The charter school and some of the other topics that we have to talk about where there are questions that are answered or questions that are asked to staff

[1:49:20] staff are like, oh, should I answer that? I think I have the information. I'm not 100% sure. I don't know how to answer that question. And I know the feeling because I presented to

[1:49:30] boards in the past and different positions. And I know the nervousness of just doing the presentations and am I getting this right? Did I get this information correct? Am I telling them the right information? I want to eliminate that if possible

[1:49:46] Completely from staff. Feeling that they have to answer something immediately when it's asked.

[1:49:52] And I want to make sure that you get information that is accurate and timely.

[1:49:59] So I started thinking about the process that we had in Fairfield.

[1:50:04] I had a great conversation with Michelle

[1:50:07] And I was talking with her about this, and she had some history about how this process started in Fairfield-Sassoon. and wanted to bring this to your attention. I know I've had

[1:50:18] Separate conversations with you about

[1:50:21] Making adjustments and tweaking how you ask questions in advance and how you get accurate information back.

[1:50:28] And really wanting to have this opportunity as a time to talk about how you're feeling about questions being asked. How are you feeling about responses that you're getting, and any expectations that you have, so that we have a clear process so that staff, when they're presenting to you

[1:50:44] They know exactly what to expect, and that you know exactly what to expect. So wanted to just start off with that

[1:50:53] My biggest pet peek

[1:50:56] Because we ask a lot of questions and we know we did

[1:51:01] My thing is, when we ask a question, we're not just asking the question for us, but we're asking the question for the public

[1:51:09] And so if you say, I'm going to get back to you

[1:51:13] But it's not in a public forum

[1:51:17] Then you're not really answering the question in the open meeting that it was intended in.

[1:51:24] So my thing is, if you're gonna get back to us, then it should be at the next meeting

[1:51:32] There should be like a placeholders of questions from last meeting. Here are the answers.

[1:51:37] You know, like we do correspondence, or whatever, these were the questions that were brought up at such and such a meeting, and we now have the answers for you, so that it's done in an open public meeting, and people in the public know the answers to these 2. Yeah, great, we know the answers

[1:51:54] But if those people were listening that day

[1:51:57] They're not going to know him if you email us the answers

[1:52:01] You know, so I just think it needs to be the answers need to come in a public forum too. Because that's where the questions were asked.

[1:52:09] Yeah, the responses. Yeah, you can do it just like we do correspondence, right? You could do a follow-up to questions asked at a previous board meeting

[1:52:25] She's going to pay me the big idea. I couldn't agree more. Yes, I think there's a few different buckets that are involved here

[1:52:36] So first, if we're having, if it's an item that we are making a decision on

[1:52:42] Yeah, no, there's going to be some questions that you got to think of on your feet. That's the job. And our job is to think in the moment, decide in the moment. We are not allowed to decide in advance.

[1:52:55] So it's natural for us We are required by the Brown Act and a number of other things to make the decision in that hearing. So yes, we're going to be creating additional information as it comes up. That's just part of the process

[1:53:12] A different thing is a presentation under superintendent's reports

[1:53:17] Okay, sure, that makes sense that we… perhaps we could have a little more prep time on that and perhaps the

[1:53:24] Staff would understand some of the questions that are coming ahead that that kind of makes sense. And then the third item is sunshine items.

[1:53:33] Where we absolutely are the Pope

[1:53:36] It comes before us as a sunshine item. There's a couple of things I've asked for that I think are going to come forward essentially a sunshine. We are the public. We're going to ask questions as they come up. If you if you let us know in advance and we have some questions, great.

[1:53:52] I think most especially where we have to make a decision

[1:53:57] We can do some advanced prep, but no, there's going to always be some on your feet.

[1:54:03] Dude, that's the process

[1:54:05] Those are my thoughts. I don't know how my colleagues feel. I agree with that as well. But I think they're like oftentimes we do get so many information in advance, so we can you know prepare our questions so you can send them to you

[1:54:22] But because we are in a public, I think because we got to think of the questions in public, I think some of the answers should be provided in public and I just don't want to get into place

[1:54:35] Where every time we're asking a question Risner will get back to you next meeting. We'll get back to you next meeting.

[1:54:41] So I think it's like that

[1:54:45] Give and take a little bit something we, I mean, I would love to hear that you said you spoke to Michelle and there's a fair way of doing kind of talk about

[1:54:54] That was

[1:54:56] I know that Courtney also has reviewed kind of our process and has some questions potentially. So between Michelle and Courtney, absolutely

[1:55:05] Well, let me say this

[1:55:09] Here's a deeper dive

[1:55:10] Yeah, so I was gonna say.

[1:55:11] In some of the questions, because we really dig deep into some of the presentations, and they're not able to give us those answers. We need to recognize when there's a deeper dive and make sure when we are setting the next agenda

[1:55:27] That that sits high on the list on the agenda to bring that question, put it back out there, and then that person gives the answer, because all the answers are not surfaced on your feet answers. Absolutely. Right, because we do get kind of heady

[1:55:43] I don't mean that in a negative way, but that's because we need that information so that we can make the decisions that we have to make. So there are times when it is necessary to

[1:55:56] come back with that information, and I would tell staff, when you do that

[1:56:01] Think about

[1:56:03] Both sides are presenting that information, not just presenting it

[1:56:09] Because we asked that

[1:56:12] Think about the pro and the con of that when you respond, because if when you respond with that answer

[1:56:20] That's going to sometimes initiate another question, all right, but you're only prepared to answer the question that was asked a month ago. So

[1:56:30] I think really

[1:56:33] stand on top and look down when you're preparing those responses for those deeper dive

[1:56:41] Information that we're asking because we're only asking for information that'll help us do our job, our responsibilities, and making decisions because we depend on you

[1:56:51] You're the experts if

[1:56:53] In those matters, and we need to understand that

[1:57:00] I really appreciate you explaining your position and that dual side. You know it's really about

[1:57:08] us respecting that we're getting the information that you're needing to do to make your decisions.

[1:57:14] And that

[1:57:16] You understand that sometimes it does take a deeper dive and then your role is to also understand

[1:57:23] And I'll just use my own example.

[1:57:26] That SACS report can be 300 pages long. It has over 10,000 lines in it with account strings that are 16 to 22 digits long

[1:57:36] And I sometimes will get a question on the dice, you know, what's the budget? What? How much money do we receive in this resource while I'm familiar with the numbers, I don't work on those resources. As a matter of fact, there's

[1:57:50] 15 accountants that work in different sets of resources. So you could even ask the accountants who do the day to day work, and they couldn't tell you what's in this resource. Only at the person who does that resource could probably give you the number off the top of your head

[1:58:05] So it is, it's an appreciation of each other's knowledge base and being able to get you the answer at that point.

[1:58:13] I think one of the things that maybe Courtney will speak to when she's going through the slides is

[1:58:18] I totally appreciate Trustee Coleman's position as, yeah, oftentimes you are asking that question, not just for yourself.

[1:58:27] But you're asking it because you represent constituents and you need this information to be answered in a public way because they're watching or you're following up and they need to hear it.

[1:58:38] No one's trying to prevent that at all. One of the steps in this process is that

[1:58:44] You all would decide

[1:58:46] In conjunction with Superintendent Parr, how that information is shared back.

[1:58:50] One suggestion is how Fairfield does it. They offer it as part of the amended

[1:58:57] available agenda. So it's the Friday before the board agenda is published. It's an amended item that comes. That's just how they did it there.

[1:59:10] We could figure out how to take those questions you have as you've had your time to go through during the week, what the agenda items look like, you peruse them, and those big questions that you all know and appreciate take a deeper dive

[1:59:25] If you could give us that respect to collect the appropriate, accurate information and compile it. And sometimes we have to like check with our counterparts. We have to consult with staff. It gives us a time instead of just pulling a number off the cuff

[1:59:41] I remember I got a Prop 28 question. How much do we really receive? I have no clue. I don't know how much we receive, and I don't know what it's spent on. But I can get you that information and it can be published prior to that meeting. Once I've got the information, the beauty of it is it's shared out to everybody that's on the board

[2:00:01] They see it, and they have consistent information. And if I'm on the podium, and you ask me that question, I've now got it, and you can ask it in a public meeting, and your constituents can have it answered. It's not to say that you wouldn't have a follow up question

[2:00:17] It's not to say you could ask questions at all in order to come to a decision-making process. What we're asking for

[2:00:25] the same time it goes out to everybody else. This notion that we're reading it a week in advance, that's fantasy. Oh, no, I'm not saying a week in advance. You did say a week in advance. Well

[2:00:37] Sometimes they come out earlier than the Friday before. And we're sitting around waiting for We just talked about we review the packets on the weekend before the meeting. Most elected officials do that.

[2:00:48] So how how this doesn't this isn't realistic.

[2:00:55] As to if I'm just saying how it was done in Fairfield and we adjusted the board agenda publishing in order to accommodate time so that could be available

[2:01:06] I can't speak to what they do now. I can only speak to you saying you did when you were doing that, were you getting… were the board members getting the packet way earlier? The packet was coming out a week before the board meeting

[2:01:19] When would you submit? And the questions would come out, I believe the Friday before the Thursday meeting. So the answers would come out as an amended item to the packet. This was six years ago. I can't speak to she's had a sooner experience.

[2:01:35] So would the expectation be that we're waiting with bated breath on the day before

[2:01:41] to review the entire packet and come up with substantive questions that you would then respond to in the next 24 hours, so it goes out in the packet. Some of them are within 24 hours, yes.

[2:01:52] Because I remember Friday mornings we'd be rushing around as staff trying to get the questions answered. What I liked about it is that we had time to collect accurate information. We posted not to one, but we posted to all and to any public that wanted to see it on

[2:02:07] We used Boardocs

[2:02:09] It was an amended additional item and everyone could see it, including the public

[2:02:15] And you had consistent answers.

[2:02:18] It wasn't like one trustee asked a question of someone, another trustee asked a question of the superintendent, another trustee asked somebody somebody else on the staff. And we were prepared that if that question was going to come up in the board meeting.

[2:02:31] We have that information. We appreciate the fact that you're asking questions that need to be answered in a public forum. I totally get that. I don't think you're hearing my concern

[2:02:44] We are human beings with families, jobs, lives

[2:02:49] This is our second job. We're doing it at night, and by your own timeframe, you're asking us to work late into the night

[2:02:57] In order to get you something that you're going to work early in the morning to get out. I just don't think that time frame works. I respect the idea of it

[2:03:06] But as a practical matter, how would we do it

[2:03:10] I don't get it.

[2:03:12] What would be the legal timeframe for posting an amendment before the meeting. So if our meeting is on Wednesday, can you post

[2:03:18] Yeah, good, excellent question. And we've talked about this and Michelle actually already kind of went through the example process slide, so I'm going to skip that and just go to the slide that talks about.

[2:03:30] How does that information get potentially disseminated?

[2:03:33] So.

[2:03:36] The Brown Act requires that the agenda be posted in accordance with whether it's a regular or special meeting.

[2:03:41] So this would be viewed as a sort of supplement to the agenda packet itself. It's not the actual agenda, so.

[2:03:50] We have some flexibility in the timing there. The issue really more so is not the timing.

[2:03:56] It's who is getting the information. So if there's supplemental information being provided to you as the board.

[2:04:03] The public also has to get that information at the same time. That's really the more important thing. It doesn't have the 72-hour requirement, because you're not actually changing the agenda, right? You're not changing, kind of, the agenda items themselves.

[2:04:15] It's sort of a supplemental document. So we kind of talked.

[2:04:18] The last slide here has 3 potential options for this process if the staff and.

[2:04:25] And trustees want to move forward with it.

[2:04:28] Option 1,

[2:04:30] is Sco, you know, to come.

[2:04:33] compiles the questions.

[2:04:36] that were received and the answers, and then just be prepared to respond at the board meeting, so there's nothing physically being disseminated, it's just a verbal.

[2:04:45] Response to the questions that you anticipated, obviously leaving room for.

[2:04:50] Follow up. Option two and three both have actually something physically being provided.

[2:04:56] Option 2 is.

[2:04:59] SCOGE compiles the answers, excuse me, the questions that were received.

[2:05:03] and prepares the responses.

[2:05:05] And then posts that publicly.

[2:05:08] and distributes that to the trustees at the exact same time. So, I know, you know, Fairfield was on a different schedule. Let's say I'm making up this timeline.

[2:05:17] Let's say the Monday before the board meeting is the timeline that everyone's agreed to, if there is ever agreement.

[2:05:24] it gets emailed to the trustees the answers and questions, and it's also posted as sort of a supplemental agenda item.

[2:05:31] On the board website at the same exact time.

[2:05:35] And then the final one

[2:05:37] is go to compile the questions and answers and just have physical copies verbally.

[2:05:43] you know, provide the answers than have physical copies available for any member of the public.

[2:05:47] And the trustees that are present, and then that could be posted as a supplement later down the line, so.

[2:05:54] These are just three options that.

[2:05:56] The most important thing, which is what you had also said.

[2:05:59] Trustee Coleman is, you're asking these questions, yes, in part, to inform your decision-making, but for the public.

[2:06:06] And so it's important that the answers are made available to the public, which is.

[2:06:10] And I don't want to speak for you, Superintendent Parr, but, you know, please feel free to chime in. The idea of this is.

[2:06:16] How do those questions get asked so that the information can be made available to the public? I think the whole idea with this process is so that it is available to the public, and that it's not being provided.

[2:06:27] at a later time in a way that's not made available to the public. And I know you also provided a very good option about maybe adding a placeholder item.

[2:06:35] For obviously non-action items or things where you can provide follow-up questions at the next board meeting.

[2:06:41] But I think the idea is how do you also have folks prepared at the present board meeting to be able to respond to you in the public, so.

[2:06:49] Again, these are just three options for your consideration, but the posting.

[2:06:55] the thing that is most important, again, is just that the members of the public get the information at the same time as you all do, so that we can have no inadvertent.

[2:07:02] Brown Act violation.

[2:07:06] Yes.

[2:07:08] Is there a difference between

[2:07:11] questions from a presentation and action item questions

[2:07:15] Yeah.

[2:07:17] Action item questions. Yeah, sure, we maybe could provide those to you after we get the agenda, after we read it over the weekend, and you could be prepared with those answers when that action item comes up, because you'll know the questions

[2:07:31] We asked you before the meeting

[2:07:36] The presentation questions

[2:07:39] We don't really know everything that's going to be in the presentation, and to me, that's where more of our questions come up, is during items that are being presented, not action items, but presentation items, and we want, you know, take a deeper dive in something

[2:07:52] Yeah.

[2:07:55] How did this affect that, or whatever? That's what I'm talking about when I say a placeholder, so we could go back to that presentation

[2:08:04] And get that answered in public since those were asked in public

[2:08:08] The other one

[2:08:09] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's a great idea.

[2:08:11] Yeah, I think it's easier if you have something coming up that's an action item

[2:08:16] You have questions yeah the board has questions we can get those to you probably in enough time so you would have an answer for us at the meeting.

[2:08:26] But it's just it's hard to get. You get lost in like

[2:08:30] The presentation is like, I know somebody asked a question about this, and then the answer just goes into the ether and we never know what it is

[2:08:39] That's what I'm talking about, the placeholder for that type of question, the presentation questions

[2:08:45] Well, I guess

[2:08:47] And maybe the word was less maybe not chosen, but

[2:08:52] Respect. When I ask questions of a staff member, it's not a lack of respect for you. In fact, it's a big respect that I think you can answer that question because you're getting paid well and you do a good job and we have a great you know

[2:09:05] Pretty awesome stuff here at SCO. So I don't see asking questions in the moment as a lack of respect. It's not a

[2:09:13] Exactly. I mean, my dad worked for an office of education. He knew when his tech stuff was on there, his was in the seat, and he could answer the questions. He had his binders and books and whatever

[2:09:25] And I grew up with that.

[2:09:27] I don't mind asking questions ahead. I know in the past when I first started here

[2:09:32] That was something that we were asked to, and it was used as a gotcha by staff.

[2:09:38] And on occasion, I'd ask the question and policy would change in between, but they didn't mention until I think of in the moment

[2:09:47] When was that policy enacted? Oh, we just did that two weeks ago.

[2:09:52] Okay, so I mean it goes both ways.

[2:09:56] And I would second Dana's timeline thing. I'm not sure because of the system, I know with Erica it's hard enough just to have that. We do the meeting

[2:10:07] But not even two weeks before

[2:10:10] Do that like a week and a half before the meeting on Monday, and then we try to post

[2:10:16] By Wednesday, but no later than Friday and that, and sometimes it's all kind of coming together, so I'm not sure how I love the idea. I'd rather get a full

[2:10:25] answer to a question that I don't see the logistically how

[2:10:29] That necessarily happens

[2:10:31] There might be some topics like the budget and LCAP, right? We get the budget goal ahead

[2:10:38] So maybe that's in terms of sort of an interim step

[2:10:44] Maybe that's one where we do this, right? We said it. So we get the budget. How many

[2:10:50] Weeks ahead.

[2:10:52] weeks ahead.

[2:10:54] Not the Wednesday before the meeting right when I have when you know we have our jobs and everything else to deal with

[2:11:01] And maybe we start with those ones that are really big that we know

[2:11:07] about ahead of time that you can get us the what we're reviewing more ahead of time

[2:11:13] Even the budget, I have to say, in the past

[2:11:18] Not with your

[2:11:20] Administration. But I'd ask, well, why don't you have these department heads butts in the seats so we can ask them the questions and know

[2:11:28] They wouldn't show up. They wouldn't then

[2:11:32] So that's always troubling to me.

[2:11:35] With the budget, they do present the budget. They present it, and then the next meeting we take action right exactly and we also get the budget well enough that we agreed it in a human

[2:11:50] craft intelligent question. There's a little bit for in this, right? So

[2:11:57] And then get, you know, although if they keep doing it like they did it this pastel was really good. That was the easiest budget to read effort.

[2:12:10] But looking at… so, for example, I'm looking at next month's calendar right in our our meeting is on the 14th. Is that correct?

[2:12:19] October 14th. Yes, so we would expect to see

[2:12:26] The agenda and and packet on what day normally

[2:12:31] Sometimes it comes out Wednesday before we try for the seventh. Like, for example. Okay, September's didn't come out until today. So you guys got it on Thursday instead of Wednesday. Okay, but let's say it's the seventh grand

[2:12:48] When would we need to ask you the questions, Maya?

[2:12:52] I would say I normally review everything on a weekend, right? I mean, depending on my schedule.

[2:13:01] But for those of us who have to be back at work

[2:13:04] In my case, 10 am on Thursday, not 7am.

[2:13:11] How do we accomplish reviewing that on the night of the 7th

[2:13:15] Can I share Fairfield's timeline? Just because that's what we're basing this off of. I have an email from their executive assistant in the superintendent's office.

[2:13:25] Their board meetings are on Thursdays and I'm not entirely sure when they receive their packet, but the board members have until noon the Tuesday before the meeting, which is on Thursday. So if we kept that same timeframe, we would say

[2:13:40] Submit your questions by Monday at noon. That would be our same timeframe before the board meetings.

[2:13:46] And then I believe that Fairfield then publishes the answers the day before the board meeting. So

[2:13:52] We would ask for your questions by Monday at noon, and we would get them disseminated and published by

[2:13:59] Tuesday afternoon, end of Tuesday, whatever, whatever was decided at that point. Seems like you guys are making it that's Fairfield's timeline. It was very helpful for me as a trustee. Sometimes

[2:14:11] I know that you have experienced this

[2:14:14] Packets are thick and you don't necessarily have time to review everything. But I would get those questions and I would see what my

[2:14:22] Colleagues were asking, I would see which staff person answered the questions I would know. Okay, I know who that person is. I know that they would have the accurate information. And then I would walk into the meeting and I would feel like I had background information. I was

[2:14:37] Able to hear the presentation.

[2:14:40] Think of specific questions that I would have, and sometimes I would have a question and I was able to ask those questions during the board meeting. But it was asked in a way that I want this answer. We have this process. I know I'm going to get the answer

[2:14:55] It's going to be thoroughly vetted and we're going to make sure that it's accurate. And

[2:15:01] I might not get that answer at that particular moment, and it was understood. And it was just a system that we had in place and it was very impactful for me. And so when I started to look at what we were going to change and some things that we could adjust

[2:15:16] To make it better here for questions and answers, I thought let's look at Fairfield

[2:15:21] And then when I had the conversation with Michelle and she gave me some of the history and some of the things that they had, so I don't think that it started off the same way as it ended up. I think that they've had to tweak and change a couple of things

[2:15:34] As time has gone on, but I felt like it was very impactful and I could see the questions from different individual trustees and I could see where they were going with their questions and I could understand

[2:15:46] So you as a human family, are you able to review and give me support

[2:15:54] Not every single time but I could and if I had a question that I didn't get

[2:16:02] And asked, I could look at the list of questions and say, oh, they're asking the question that I was going to ask. So at least I would see that there was already an answer there. But not every single time, because sometimes things life happens, and you just can't get through every single packet.

[2:16:19] I mean, we have a responsibility to review the entire fact.

[2:16:23] 100%. There's not a moment where we're not responsible for knowing what's in the vacuum

[2:16:29] So it feels like a pretty substantial extra layer.

[2:16:35] What we're discussing feels like a pretty substantial

[2:16:38] I think what Michelle is proposing, slam dunk, let's do it, no question. I mean, how is the public gonna know? Yeah, that's perfect for those things where these answers are going to be provided

[2:16:49] But I think it's a more fundamental change to our process.

[2:16:55] May really have been considered and it deserves

[2:17:01] Peggy.

[2:17:03] All right.

[2:17:05] I've served on a lot of boards and a lot of commissions in the city of Vallejo

[2:17:10] And that process of

[2:17:14] We reviewing, getting our questions in

[2:17:17] All right, and get a copy of that who asked this question off the board. And if there were any public

[2:17:24] people in the public that were asking questions, those would also be addressed, and there are times when actually the meeting starts at 6, and at 5 o'clock we got something else from the public with an answer

[2:17:40] That's the supplements to the agenda. But for us

[2:17:45] We have a fiduciary responsibility. Yes, we work, but we took on this when we took this position

[2:17:53] All of us basically do something, but it behooves us

[2:17:57] to represent our constituents and the school, the students. They're going to be the ones that are going to get the benefit of this, is that we do have to take that time. Yes, Peggy. I'm not asking

[2:18:13] I'm not asking for a rebutal. I am making a statement.

[2:18:19] And I'm making a statement

[2:18:20] based on how I see that that's done and I don't need anybody to debate what my statement is because I don't debate other people's statement

[2:18:32] I'm saying that system of board members presenting their questions. And then those questions are answered and we all get a copy of that. And if there's any questions that the public presents

[2:18:47] They answer their questions and we get a copy of that also. So when the meeting comes on Wednesday or Thursday, whenever it is

[2:18:56] We've got a list of who asked what questions, what the answers were for the commission, the board or whatever you're going to call it, and the public as well

[2:19:07] So that can be a way that we can do that. Not always the issues are that, let's say intense that we have to put in extra hours in what we do, but there are times when we have to do that

[2:19:23] But that's a good way to do because we do that. The boards in Vallejo do that, and I can attest to that. That's nothing new. So couldn't we try both? Couldn't we have this as an option? People could submit their questions by Monday at noon. We could run it by, you'll post it

[2:19:39] People that questions come up in the meeting. We have that a new agenda item where we have the future that we answer the questions from them and we can we don't I mean people can decide to pull it off consents and have the question read or it can be

[2:19:56] A document in there or pull people in however we want to do it. Because we can try both. I mean, that way, whichever works best for whoever. If you are freewheeling with questions ahead of the thing, rock on. If you're not, ask them. And then the third part is we are

[2:20:11] Entitled to and responsible for asking questions during

[2:20:17] My staff has to answer. Presentations is different. I agree. But these big decisions that we make

[2:20:25] as our fiduciary obligation, which I take incredibly seriously.

[2:20:31] Causes us to

[2:20:34] No, there are going to be some questions that you have to answer in the moment.

[2:20:39] And be ready for that

[2:20:41] And sure, I understand being nervous in front when you have to answer questions like that. But there are different buckets here.

[2:20:50] I think it's a great idea to do the presentation questions in the agenda, the next agenda.

[2:20:56] I think it's irresponsible to expect trustees to do work late into the night

[2:21:04] In a brand new system

[2:21:07] result in our best effort. I don't I just don't think that's real. So the timing is such that we can do that over the weekend or through the normal course

[2:21:18] And we just tweak it a little bit. That kind of makes sense. I also, looking at Courtney, I have some concerns about the legalities around this, and I'm hoping you're going to speak to that

[2:21:27] I mean, as I mentioned, the biggest thing is making sure that trust, like, as soon as trustees are asking questions.

[2:21:34] And that information is being.

[2:21:37] shared back to the trustees, that's where we have a Brown Act issue.

[2:21:41] And so that's why the most important thing is, as soon as that information is being.

[2:21:46] disseminated back, that it is also being made available to the public at the same time. So that's the most significant concern that we have from a legality.

[2:21:54] In terms of, you know, asking the questions, the one way to staff, that is okay.

[2:22:01] It's the how does it get back out, that's the problem.

[2:22:04] But we need to make sure we contemplate for in terms of how does that information get disseminated.

[2:22:16] The problem that we're trying to solve here is making sure information gets out to the public in a timely fashion. And so pre-positioning the questions is a huge

[2:22:30] Step

[2:22:31] For staff to be prepared to do that and so yes, we have a highly skilled staff, but nobody wants to be

[2:22:41] Caught off guard. And so if we have the opportunity to share questions ahead of time, you know, we can maybe think of it in terms of the same way

[2:22:52] Elena was looking at their 1%. It's aspirational that we are doing the best we can with the

[2:23:00] With a thought towards kindness to staff and understanding that everybody's busy.

[2:23:09] But the goal is to get the information to the public in a timely fashion. And if we keep that in mind, then we can kind of work along this and and see what

[2:23:22] What we can get to in terms of solving that problem without creating more on the side.

[2:23:29] Yeah, I don't think it has to be an all or nothing or just a one way. I think it can be a two-pronged approach.

[2:23:37] Like I said, you have agenda questions, and then you have presentation questions. Presentation questions can be taken care of at the next meeting. The agenda questions, if you can get them in by Monday at noon.

[2:23:49] They should be able to be answered at the meeting.

[2:23:52] So I think it's a two-pronged approach to start out

[2:23:57] you know, balance out both types of questions

[2:24:01] And give staff and trustees enough time to answer them and digest them

[2:24:13] So we're putting this on for Courtney to bake

[2:24:20] make this something that we're how we're going to do this? Is that what this is all about? We presented what it is we want.

[2:24:29] So

[2:24:31] You were very clear, Trustee Coleman

[2:24:35] that presentation questions, which are different than agenda questions. So do we make that kind of stipulation? Do you do that or how do we do that

[2:24:47] To make that going forward

[2:24:50] answers.

[2:24:51] So yeah, I'm not deciding anything because this is a matter of, you know, your preference as the trustees and obviously Dr. Pars, you know, desire to implement some sort of program. So I'm not making any decisions. I'm here to talk through your options.

[2:25:05] Um, but what I am hearing is…

[2:25:07] two things. First and foremost is having a standing agenda item.

[2:25:12] to respond to questions. Non-action item questions, but presentation questions at the subsequent meeting to the extent, you know.

[2:25:20] folks are not able to answer it at the, for example, at the.

[2:25:23] Meeting next week if something comes up on a presentation question that an action item.

[2:25:28] You can have a standing item for the next October meeting for those questions to be answered.

[2:25:33] Um, but I'm also hearing that there is a desire.

[2:25:37] And I almost see of it as like a let's just, you know, it's a startup, let's give it a go.

[2:25:42] And maybe for the next meeting.

[2:25:44] If folks want to submit questions ahead of time, that they can go ahead and do so. I don't think there's any action items. I know I just looked at it. Um, I don't think there's any action items, I don't know if anybody can speak to that quickly.

[2:25:57] For the next one, other than consent, obviously.

[2:26:00] But that moving forward, there is a desire to ask questions ahead of time to the extent you are able to, staff can.

[2:26:08] Respond to those. I think what I need to know is, how would you like that information disseminated? Do we want to supplement? I think I heard most folks talking about something being posted.

[2:26:19] As opposed to just being verbally.

[2:26:21] communicated to trustees at the meeting? Is there any sort of…

[2:26:25] Consensus on that process, and I think this is also a.

[2:26:29] Work in progress, so just cause you say something today, I think we need to.

[2:26:33] see how… feel it out and see how it goes.

[2:26:36] And maybe have follow-up discussions on this.

[2:26:40] Personally, I like option number three.

[2:26:43] Okay.

[2:26:44] answers and have copies available for trustees and public at the board meeting.

[2:26:51] Personally, I like to. I'd rather get an F.

[2:26:55] I've asked in my head, I'd rather get on my head

[2:26:59] Okay, other…

[2:27:00] I don't always have time right before the

[2:27:03] coming up if we've got a closed session at 5 meeting starts at 6. If that's sitting at our at the dais and the closed hearing goes till 6, I never get a chance to look at them and I can't read during the network meeting

[2:27:18] I'd rather see him before personally.

[2:27:22] Maybe you could do both.

[2:27:23] Well, yeah, I mean, so you can do both. So I guess this is a question for staff, and I know, Erica, you kind of provided the Fairfields timeline.

[2:27:31] Uh, and so is there a general agreement, so if meetings are on Wednesday.

[2:27:36] that the ambition, uh, Trustee LaValle, I like the way you phrased that, is.

[2:27:41] Monday noon, try and provide the questions, is that enough time for staff? I think we needed to hear from staff in terms of what's reasonable for you all. And again, maybe the answer is.

[2:27:51] We need to see and play it out.

[2:27:56] Maybe open to making adjustments

[2:28:02] Because if it doesn't feel right. If it takes too long, it's too cumbersome, then we adjust

[2:28:08] And this won't be it

[2:28:09] Okay.

[2:28:11] We won't have all those deep dives

[2:28:15] Questions. At every single meeting, so

[2:28:19] Okay, if I could

[2:28:21] I do think there's an issue around public process in terms of not only are we humans, but the public

[2:28:30] is full of humans too

[2:28:33] Not all, not everyone is human.

[2:28:38] So just based on, you know how things work in the world of public government

[2:28:47] I would say that at a minimum, we should give 24 hours notice

[2:28:53] It's not that we're required to by law, but there's a point to the 24 hours, right? So someone's interested in a particular topic

[2:29:01] There's a response to the question. So if we're having a meeting Wednesday night, if we're going to produce a new document for the public, it seems at least we could do is do it to give them 24 hours

[2:29:14] If you don't mind me saying just because it's published doesn't preclude us from asking the questions during the meeting they'd still be getting the information in the timeframe that. Yes, but they're

[2:29:28] Yes, they are, but it

[2:29:30] Outside of this process, that's the format that they're receiving the information. Is during the meeting live they're getting, we're asking the questions and we're getting the answers

[2:29:41] and the public's hearing it. So we're talking about, you know, having a timeframe for a posted

[2:29:48] document that is changing the timeframe that they're receiving the information. So I think that that puts a level of burden on staff that

[2:29:59] It doesn't need to be there. But then we're losing half of the benefit

[2:30:04] or a portion of the benefit.

[2:30:06] So if the purpose, what is, I guess we're going back to what is the purpose? If the purpose is to inform, better inform the public

[2:30:14] Then giving them a document at 6 Pm. Doesn't do a great job

[2:30:20] 6 p.m. the night prior? Yeah, that's… yeah, yeah, that's the 24 hours I'm talking about. Yeah, so… but what I'm saying is that's in addition to whatever they'll receive the night of

[2:30:30] So now they've they've got the opportunity to access this online

[2:30:35] and they've got the opportunity to hear it live in meeting

[2:30:39] So are you going to re-ask the questions that you put in that staff has asked in the written document? I'm saying it doesn't preclude you from doing that

[2:30:48] As I amended supplement, and they just read the amended supplement. And if there's anything beyond that, then that comes up and they'll submit those

[2:31:03] Additional questions. And

[2:31:07] That's when you can deal with if we're going to get it right out now, or if that comes out at the next meeting.

[2:31:14] I guess, so I guess this is my awkward way of saying

[2:31:17] Option 2.

[2:31:19] Okay

[2:31:21] Michelle, I just want to add because I think it'll help. I don't have a problem with the 24 hours. I think it makes sense.

[2:31:29] We became trained when we were at Fairfield Suisuns. And we knew when those questions would come. We knew they're going to come around that day on that deadline.

[2:31:38] that times we were waiting for some of us even adjusted our calendars so we would free up time so we could turn them around as quickly as possible. And I think that's what we would do.

[2:31:49] So, if you want them available to the public 24 hours before

[2:31:54] I think that's doable, because we will adjust to make sure we meet that deadline.

[2:31:59] The questions aren't that they're so particularly hard. It's just we need time to confer with staff

[2:32:07] Double check with our superintendent. Make sure we're, you know

[2:32:11] Phrasing it correctly, making sure we understand what you're asking. Sometimes she has more information than than we have from just the question alone.

[2:32:20] We're just trying to get you the answers in the best way possible, and we also want to do it as legally as

[2:32:25] We need to establish a process, and you would

[2:32:31] Superintendent has already laid that process out. You've supported it. She supported it. Now that's the process that we'll use and we'll tweak it as we go.

[2:32:41] At least questions to

[2:32:45] Okay, so Erica

[2:33:03] The pack is out on Wednesday. Question is due by Monday noon. Each individual trustee to send an individual communication. If you want to. Responses in writing published and out to the trustees

[2:33:20] Tuesday at 6.

[2:33:24] And it's going to include who asked the question and who's answering the questions

[2:33:28] Gives us a day and a half

[2:33:30] I think that's doable because she could print off the addendum and just put it there, right? The addendum will be with the agenda.

[2:33:42] Yes, we would, you know, if you guys choose option two, then we would also post it as a supplemental, so it would show up on the there would be the regular agenda, and then there would be a supplemental to the agenda, which would also be posted on the kiosk outside. So it would very clearly state that something has been added

[2:33:58] For transparency, it would be very clear. She was asking if it would be printed as well, sitting at her seat. That's what you guys want. Yeah, I get mine.

[2:34:08] I got your back.

[2:34:09] I have a very technical question.

[2:34:11] Who… where do you want the questions to go? The one-way communications, obviously no other trustees are included on that. Is that to Erica, or how… and you don't have to decide now, but staff, is there a best…

[2:34:22] person for those to go to.

[2:34:26] It's Erica. Yeah, I asked the same question.

[2:34:27] Okay.

[2:34:29] Okay, oh, sorry, I'm messing on here. Okay.

[2:34:32] Anything else?

[2:34:34] On this topic.

[2:34:38] Can I add

[2:34:39] Okay, that's all I have for you.

[2:34:40] Yes.

[2:34:43] Erica are we starting this for September or are we going to try it in October?

[2:34:49] If we are implementing this, when are we doing so? Let's get

[2:34:53] If staff is okay, let's give it a dry run September. It's an easy agenda. You just got the agenda today. Never mind. October. What is his conference

[2:35:10] And whatever questions we have

[2:35:15] If we know them in advance, we send them on and they're available to staff ahead of time, but there's no then post them

[2:35:23] And so just with the knowledge that these are the topics pending and will probably be

[2:35:29] be asked at the meeting this is Thursday night and Monday's holiday Monday I'm I'm willing to wait till October also I'm going to suggest that in the future sometime whether we're having a

[2:35:45] One of these workshops. We need to just like Vallejo City Unified needs to revisit what they've done and do some observe some learnings. We should come back

[2:35:57] And see how it's working

[2:36:00] We have another study session in the spring, so… Yeah, yeah, okay. We can follow up, like, how did the process work, and

[2:36:15] Well, the process is alive. It's live. It's not static

[2:36:20] Anything else, Courtney?

[2:36:21] None for me. Thank you so much!

[2:36:25] Day 36 and I adjourn this meeting.

[2:36:28] I'll see you all

Board of Education Special Meeting - Study Session--------------------------Video Recording & Closed Captioning provided by Zoom

Agenda

Transcript