Go ahead and get started.
>> Trustee Lee
>> here.
>> Trusty King.
>> Trusty Marquez
>> here.
>> Vice President Weekly
>> present.
>> President Wells
>> here. All right. Welcome to the August
27th, 2025 meeting of the Redwood City
School District Governing Board.
No, no, no. Cinco
sign numero. No one's in person, but if
you were see us in persona, celestada
al de la. Uh, at all our board meetings,
we encourage public participation.
Invite your comments on issues of
concern regardless of whether they're on
the agenda. Um, if your comments for an
item on the agenda, you'll be called and
that item is being considered. If it's
for an item not on the agenda, you'll be
called shortly during the public comment
uh section of the agenda. Uh to let us
know that you'd like to comment and if
you're here in person, uh please fill
out a speaker card throughout the
entrance to the room and then you can
hand it to Evelyn. If you're attending
via Zoom, uh you may fill out the form
that's linked from the agenda or just
raise your Zoom hand when the item is
being considered. And then to be fair to
all speakers, we limit public comments
to three minutes per person per topic
unless otherwise noted. Uh let's move on
to changes to the agenda. Uh I've got
one request to still yeah to remove uh
8.2 which is the first reading in
discussion of BP 1112
the media relations.
Any other changes to the agenda?
Can I get a motion to approve the agenda
with that one change?
>> I move to approve the agenda minus 8.2.
>> Uh second.
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> I Okay, great. Uh public comment.
Evelyn, any speaker cards? No speaker
cards? None online? None on Zoom. Okay.
Um then we will move on to approval of
the bond consent items. Um can we get a
motion to approve?
>> So move.
>> Second.
>> All in favor? I.
>> All right. Now we're on to discussion
items. um slated for an hour. We're
going to get a timer.
>> Yeah, it's coming up. Uh so just just so
you're aware, we'll uh we'll keep
ourselves accountable to time. No, no,
no. It's all Evelyn. Thank you for uh
stepping on to it.
>> Um okay, so our first item is the
discussion on the process for uh
national search for the next
superintendent of schools. Um as you all
know, uh Dr. B, as you all know, Dr.
Baker announced his intention to retire
after this school year. Um, and so we're
we're grateful for the deep uh
dedication to our students, staff, and
families, and for the study leadership
he's provided. Um, but tonight's item is
not a farewell. Um, we have a full year
of important work to do together. So,
we're going to save reflections and
formal accolades for the end of the
school year when you can honor your
service appropriately. Um, so this
evening's goal, uh, our goal is really
to align on the superintendent search
process. And we're just getting started
here. Um I I think from this discussion
item there's really two items that we
should focus on at this time. Um but
you're welcome to bring up others if you
want. So um probably the one that I
think is the most important is to decide
what's the pool of firms that we want to
have come present and then we can select
from. Um and that was included in the
agenda there. Um I just wanted to give
you a little background on them on how
they got selected. those three firms um
they came from looking at other
districts in San Monteo County uh and
just looking to see what firms were they
using um both for their consideration
when they did their consideration
selection and then who they were
selecting and it really seemed like I
think Sequoia used these three too right
when they were selecting theirs but um
the um it it seemed like these three
covered overwhelmingly the majority of
the districts that I looked at um across
the county and as you can if you looked
on their websites you can see that
they've been making placements at
schools in both Santa CL and San Monteo
County. Um so the question then is you
know I guess would be do we think that
three firms are sufficient to select
from and if not how many firms do you
think we need and do you have
suggestions for um additional firms? Um
by the way uh the superintendent John
John's reached out to all three firms
and received initial information from a
couple of them. I don't know if all of
them have gotten back yet. Um so but you
can share that with the trustees. Uh
where okay
>> so I have information both from uh
leadership and associates hazard jug and
associates McFersonson I did connect
with on Monday morning but as of today I
don't have anything so it was supposed
to get to me
>> okay the latest
>> so obviously there'll be more
information as we get to presentations
we'll we'll learn well they'll they'll
come in and do presentations and we'll
be able to ask them questions directly
about um what we want and how we get and
they'll they'll talk about what their
process is and how they go through it.
Um, so then then the next thing, so one
is going to be firms like are we do we
have the right selection pool? The next
thing that I think is important to kind
of align on tonight is kind is the
timeline. Um, my preference is to have
us um really focus on having these firms
come in at September 10th meeting. Um,
so that we can really get started. Uh,
and if we are able to have the pool come
in, present, and we can make a selection
that night, that really puts us on track
for interviews in December and
potentially approving a contract in
January. Um, you know, obviously the
exact mechanisms of how that timeline is
going to work is going to depend upon
the firm selected and and exactly what
process they run through, but but
generally speaking, it kind of looks
like September and October, if we're on
that timeline, would be around planning
and listening to, you know, community
staff and, you know, and doing community
and staff engagement, that kind of
thing. Um, October and November would be
recruiting and advertising for for
candidates to pull it in. Then November
and December would be selecting
finalists and conducting interviews. Um,
you know, and just so you know, this is
going to happen over the course of
multiple meetings. Um, and uh, you know,
and and to protect candidate
confidentiality, some of it's going to
happen in close session and according
with the Brown Act. Um, so I do want to
flag in advance and of course we will
we'll have the timeline once we select
the firm of what the exact times are,
but there are going to be some lengthy
meetings coming up. Um, and though, you
know, we'll have to some of them will be
closed sessions. So if it happens before
a regular meeting, that could mean
meeting at like four or five beforehand.
Um, and so we want to make sure that
we're able to keep some calendar
flexibility, particularly into the
months of November and December. Um, so
that we have that option to be able to
kind of get this process and keep it on
that timeline. Um, January sounds like
it's kind of like a normal time to be
making these selections and then that
gives us the opportunity to decide, you
know, when does when to start the
contract if we want to have overlap time
or just have it start in in the summer.
That's it. Um, I don't know if people
have comments, thoughts, or other topics
that they think we should be discussing
about this tonight, but I'll pass it off
to you.
>> I know. Did you have anything you want
down on top of
>> Just to reinforce what Mike said, all
interviews are in close session. They're
not public. They're all in close
session. The only time that something is
public is when you decide on the
selection of person to become the next
superintendent. But everything else is
done in close section. close session
with the exception of the if they do any
types of um work out in the community,
stakeholder meetings and so forth.
That's of course out in the community
and also open to all. But when you do
the interviews, it's all in closed
session.
And one one last thing I'll add is that
these firm part of the reason that we
hire the firms is not just to get the
pool of candidates that they can reach
out to, but they have done this before.
They will teach us best practices, make
sure that we're doing the right level of
community engagement. Um, you know, the
right level of staff involvement, um,
you know, particularly in setting up
like what are the criteria we should be
looking for for in a superintendent. Um,
and that we're following the Brown Act
and doing everything in accordance with
the guidelines. Um any anyone who wants
to have share their thoughts or
discussions to start?
>> Well, what I ideally would not want to
have would be like several different
firms come up and just present about how
great their firm is. Um because I I feel
like it would be good for us to go into
a discussion with like a rubric of how
what is true of the search firm that
will do a great job of this. Right? So
what are some of the aspects of what we
would look for? And so some of it is
placement in similar districts uh where
they placed a superintendent and saw you
know results ability to for us to kind
of back channel um so not just getting
their their slick marketing materials
and pitch about how incredible their
firm is but reaching out to districts
that actually placed superintendent with
the firm like what was good, what was
bad, right? And the ability to go and
collect that that information. Um, do we
do we have a sense as a board of what
the rubric is that we want to use to
select a great search firm here?
>> Please don't all speak at once. No, go
ahead, David.
>> I have thoughts, but um, yeah, it's a
good discussion item. Um I I think to to
David Wickley's point, I I be curious on
the different scope of services that the
different um firms provide. Uh I imagine
there's a range of things in terms of
how much handholding they're willing to
do in terms of setting up community
engagement efforts. Um developing or
honing a rubric that we that we come up
with in an initial capacity if that's
what we end up doing. Uh and yeah,
specific examples where they've done
that. Uh, and I think it would be great
to have an understanding of examples
where they've done it within um
communities that are analogous to ours.
Um,
so that those are my broad thoughts. Uh,
I would also love to get um some sort of
sense of the responsiveness of the
different firms. Like I think this is
something that's super important to all
of us obviously and because we take it
seriously, I would want to make sure
that we have a firm that also takes it
as if not more seriously. Um, and so
just the even the simple things like
responsiveness to to questions or even
the initial email efforts is probably
something that's uh that comes to mind
for me.
>> Jen, anything you want to add?
>> Well, I I I'm assuming I'm hoping the
firms would kind of guide us in this
whole community engagement piece. I
mean, that's really important for us for
our district and the kind of
superintendent we want to have. So, I
don't know if we're going to be able to
pre-prep them with some questions or
information that they would provide
during the
>> Yeah. So, from what I've seen from the
just the materials that they've sent and
it's it's all it's all baked into their
process. like it really is. They're all
kind of following the same sort of 4 to
8 weeks timeline of like, hey, we're
going to do stakeholder community
engagement surveys, um, bilingual, uh,
be able to do stakeholder meetings, um,
and set that stuff up. Um, but I'm sure
there's nuance in all of them. So, I
think the examples idea is a is a great
idea.
Costs might be one of them, right? Just
to put it out there, right? Yeah, we we
want quality, but like cost may be a
component as well. Um, I mean, I would
love to see them articulate how they
think our district is unusual, may
differ from a typical district. What are
their opinions on that? And then how
their firm is unusual. You know, what
are ways in which they are different?
Uh, if all the packs we're getting seem
somewhat self- similar, it's like, well,
what should we be looking at as a
district board that differentiates your
firm from other firms? And then ideally
lining those two things up. What are the
ways in which your unusual differences
as a search firm line up with our
unusual needs? There's a degree to which
that's a narrative, but I' I'd love to
see them put in the effort to tell that
narrative.
>> Yes, Cecilia.
>> Um,
obviously the information is going to
come in regarding these three firms. Um,
and then we would get to see which one's
the best one, whether costwise and all
the other um, stuff. Um, to David's
point regarding like what has worked and
who they've hired and if it worked or
not, I feel that may be a little harder
to choose because
people have different opinions about
people, right? And so some
superintendent may be there in the for a
long time and some whether it's personal
or issues they have and they go. So um I
mean that's a hard one I think. Um
obviously I would want to see all the
information and again maybe how
successful they were in reaching or
finding someone for um I would I would
want to say maybe similar districts um
because we also don't want to compare
ourselves with
>> you know a district that's way off from
how we think. So
>> um just I know that we've identified
these three at least preliminarily. Um
is is there interest in
sorry I'm making an assumption that
these three have focused in California
or are they also nationwide?
>> They search nationwide. Yeah they do
nationwide searches. Yeah.
>> Okay. And are in terms of the search
that we are that we'd be embarking on is
is the board open to like national
candidates as well?
>> Um yeah, I mean that's something that
we'll talk with them about for sure in
that process, but I think we had I think
we Yeah, we'd look at national
candidates.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Um if there's an appetite for expanding
the pool of just these three um I I have
heard of other firms. Um, but also I
understand that we're on a timeline that
we want to get moving. So
happy to at least put those out there.
Um, once I can gather them and if it if
we're able to pull them in by the right
time for bringing folks in, then maybe
that works. Um, but let me know if
that's not if we feel good already about
this this pool.
>> I'm I'm hearing there may be some early
signs of lack of responsiveness from
McFersonen, uh, which is a data point.
Um, there's three other ones that seem
reasonably credible as far as I know.
I've never done a superintendent search
before, but just doing some skimming
around like Ray and Associates, School
Exec Connect, and the Costco Group. Um,
now there may be good reasons why, you
know, these three were picked versus
those three. Um, but just again, this
comes back to to to rubric. Um I I do
think if there's a lightweight process
that we could do to go and send out some
questions like here are six questions
that the board has for any search firm
that wants to go and bid on this
business, right? And one is what are
your fee for services of course, right?
But uh then maybe there are more
interesting questions like how will you
know if your placement was successful
and what could people look at
objectively to know that your placements
are good? Right? So be an example of a
question where we could just put it out
there like an RFP for call it like all
six of these, right? So this is not
asking for six one-hour presentations of
dog and pony show, you know, why my uh
search firm is so amazing. It's just
like give us some written responses and
see like how quickly do they get back to
us and what do we think about the
quality of the responses
>> and then based on that that narrows the
pool of candidates that ultimately would
come back to the board for like this
interview process. Is that what you're
thinking?
>> Yeah. I don't know, Mike. What do you I
think you're shephering this, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I'm shephering it. I think
Well, so one of the questions is is like
how many do we want to consider? Um,
realistically, there's going to be time
for presentation. We're going to have to
discuss it. You know, that discussing
it, you know, in this format is often
slower than, you know, like a normal
kind of conversation. We'll have to keep
that in mind. Um, so
>> what if we use the written response as a
top of funnel? So, what if we have like
a written RFP with a bunch of questions
that we send out to six, seven firms
with an anticipation that based on what
we see back, we'll pick two uh to go and
duke it out.
>> Okay. And are is there any criteria that
you could use to limit those firms
beforehand? For example, would you want
ones that had placed in the area before
or had experience with districts in the
area before? Because that's something we
could filter off the top, right, without
>> That's exactly what I'm asking in terms
of rubric, right? There may be some cut
points where it's like whether cost is
just so high or they've never placed a
district like ours where we're willing
to say like just on the face of it like
we we we don't need to waste our time on
this firm because they're they're out of
rubric.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Because I'm happy to look
for a couple others and you know and
talk to them and then see if Yeah, we
can get an RFP and decide which are the
ones that we want to bring in. It would
have to be soon um if we're going to try
and make that September 10th date
>> for sure.
>> Um to be able to pull them in. Uh but um
yeah, I'm just what I'm wondering is
there even ones that like once I have
that are there things where I can just
like right off the top say well they've
never
>> they've never placed in they don't have
any experience in the you know in the
Bay Area for example.
>> Yeah. I think for me top of mind yes if
they've never placed anyone in
California or the Bay Area like that's
not good for us because it's pretty
specific.
>> Okay. I think um I would very much like
someone that has experience especially
in the community engagement piece that
have worked with majority or materially
uh material uh Spanish speaking
population.
>> Okay.
>> Um and then I those are probably the two
main ones.
>> My my hunch is that with those cuts we
don't have a list that's longer than
like six, right? So we're not talking
about like a
>> yeah including ones that are here
probably
>> right. So the these three plus another
three and we've probably got everyone
who's like top of funnel.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um
so would you like to share those with
the superintendent and I can work with
them about doing an RFP um offline and
we'll make sure that we have you know if
I'll explain the process of why they
didn't make it um in that and we'll be
able to share that back that way. Okay.
Uh, and then does it does the timeline
make sense? Does everyone sort of agree
that we should be aiming for a January
um that's December interviews really uh
for a January hire? Um
>> uncomfortably fast, which is good. Um I
mean it's we need to be very thoughtful
but also we need to to pick the person
promptly to make sure they have time to
on board.
>> Yeah, I think so far the timelines that
the firms have sent in so far align with
that. Um, so and it also gives us a
little buffer like if we if something
goes a little bit longer and you have to
do it in January, it's okay.
>> Um, and then just for disclosure, um,
talking about the timeline and the
making ourselves available,
unfortunately, I will not be present at
the November 12th meeting. So there's
>> that's probably going to be okay, but
you know, it'll obvious work that out.
Okay.
Anything
else to discuss at this point? I think
we've got stuff to move forward on.
I got I got the information I wanted.
So, okay, let's move on. Um, perfect.
Discussion item one. Okay, so discussion
item.
I just want to make sure that we
captured the action items because you
said we were going to get stuff from Dr.
Baker. Do we have an enumeration of
who's going to get what to Dr. Baker to
>> that? If people have suggest I think
David Lee has a suggestion or two. You
had a suggestion or two. Got it.
>> Um and if you could uh provide him some
context of why you are suggesting these
was it like you know I did a Google
search or I've had experience with them
or I saw that they had done it someplace
else. That would be really helpful for
it. And then I captured here, by the
way, this these are the criteria that I
captured for the um the rubric that we
were talking about. Um placement in
similar districts, uh placement in the
Bay Area. Um reach uh we'll we reach out
to other districts. That's something
that we just want to do. Um examples of
their community outreach. Um that might
be for the presentation when they come
in. Uh their responsiveness, obviously,
cost. Um, and then what what do they
think about our district that is unusual
and what do you think that their firm
can unusually bring to it?
>> Okay.
>> Spanish speaking community. Yeah, that's
I
Yeah, Spanish speaking.
>> And then the question about like how
someone objective would know that their
placement was successful.
>> Okay.
>> Right. How do we know that you're good
at your job?
>> How do how do you measure a successful
placement?
Cool.
All right, we're on to policies. Um, as
a reminder, we told 8.2
and so our next discussion item is 8.3,
which is the first reading and
discussion of BP114, and this is
district sponsored social media.
>> Thank you. Uh we have a few board
policies tonight to review and we are
going to be including a few more details
tonight in our discussion for each of
them. Uh starting with this first one,
board policy 114.
There was um a request to know
information about background on CSBA
contributions versus district staff or
perhaps attorneys or so forth. So as we
go one by one, our fellow board policy
committee um trustee King and Lee will
be joining the conversation and um of
course for the entire board to discuss
as well. This particular one involves
social media. It was CSBA only
contributions
uh in this particular one. Did you want
to add anything uh for David or
Jennifer?
I I'm looking at sorry I have to retrace
a little bit but I believe this one was
um I don't believe that the trustees or
staff had um changes to the the policy
it was purely the CSBA. Is that right
Wendy?
>> Right.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And then I was the one who requested
that we get that and that's the kind of
level that I was hoping for just like
yeah it all came from CSBA was 90% CSBA
but we changed a word or two here or we
made all these changes. Like that's the
kind of kind of level of of description
that I was asking for. Not line by line
edit like this word came from and this
word came from that kind of thing.
>> Okay. Is anyone
>> I'm a little bit crazy because even if
you're not that level I
>> That's okay. I know. I understand.
>> So I I love Yeah. Um I love I think it's
great feedback because I think it's
going to help the discussion as well. So
I think we're going to try in the future
to make the format more palatable and
digestible. Yeah.
>> Um but I appreciate the the patience for
this time.
>> Great. Um so with all of that
information, does anyone have any
comments, questions about um this one?
Looks pretty straightforward. Okay,
let's move on to uh number five. Uh sub
item five and that's the first streaming
discussion of board policy and ARS for
5145.13.
Um and this is response to immigration
enforcement. Wait, did I miss one? I
missed four. Yeah, I missed four, which
is the um board policy 3320 claims and
actions against the district. Sorry
about that.
and Trusty King or Lee I am more than
happy to start but if you want to jump
in I'm going on previous habit so you
let me know
>> you can extend the legal
>> I'm happy to defer to you
>> okay so uh in regards to this particular
board policy it was primarily CSBA
however we did get recommendations from
our county council to include a
resolution in regards to um
when claims are submitted and so forth
which will come at the second reading.
So once the board has had an opportunity
to discuss that second reading will come
with the resolution. So uh when that
time occurs that will that will occur.
So that was a contribution as well. Um
and that was discussed also with the
board policy committee. We also have
another um let's see what there was one
more here.
Um, regarding our su our uh our county
council also
put into a contribution about the last
page on this particular policy. Um, when
it's the first paragraph, if the board
or superintendent when appropriate
allows the claim in whole or part or
compromises the claim and the claimant
accepts the amount allowed or offered to
settle the claim, the board may require
the claim as a settlement of the entire
claim. So it was whether or not the
superintendent was the designate or not.
So a very small comment but that was
something that was additionally made.
And then the last item was contributed
by a staff member on page five which was
in accordance with the government code
935.4 that board delegates the
superintendent the authority to allow
compromise or settle claims. It
originally stated 50,000, but it was
requested to change it to $25,000 or
less pursuant to any conditions of
coverage in the district's JPA agreement
or insurance coverage and that was
contributed by a staff member. The
change from 50,000 to 25,000.
>> Got it. That makes sense. Thanks for the
additional context. Um, does anyone have
any questions or comments um after all
that explanation?
Oh, it was super helpful. So, um, okay.
So now we'll move on to this time at sub
item five which is first reading and
discussion of the board policy and
administrative reg regulation of 5145.13
and this is the response to immigration
enforcement
>> and our district for quite some time
certainly over the last year has uh
followed through on these activities
that are recommended in the response to
immigration enforcement and much of this
was led by of course Dr. Baker and
director of community schools and after
school programs Michelle Griffith and
her team. So Michelle did have some
contributions but not substantial
contributions perhaps awarding a
recommendation of will or shall uh that
the board policy committee reviewed. Uh
but other than that there this was a
CSBA contribution but I do know that
there might be interest to open up this
one for discussion based on the
inquiries
>> discussion
um questions.
>> Yeah. So my only comment is that like
wow this is a really important policy
and the ARS are are really important.
Um, I don't I don't have any lived
experience that can be applied by the
people that uh that this one really
works for, but I certainly can offer
empathy. Um, and I guess the only the
policy seems fine. So, and I know we
don't approve the ARs at all. So, I
guess all I'd ask is like do we think
that they're the strongest ARs that we
could write? Um, are there ways to
strengthen them? Again, I don't have a
great suggestion here, but because it's
so important, um, any kind of clarity
there might, you know, would would be
great. Like, so
>> as you're going through it, um, put it
in. The only one that popped up to me
was like there's sometimes it it talks
about, um, warrants and sometimes it's
specific about judicial warrants. Um,
and I think it's only the judicial
warrant that needs to be has to be acted
on, has to be signed by a judge. And I
know in the AR it talks about, oh, make
sure that you get the thing and document
that it's signed by the judge, but but
that was the only one that I kind of was
going through and thinking like maybe
that could be clarified, but it's just
it's such a it's a crisis moment at the
time that this is AR is being applied
that that um and I know you guys do a
great job of training everybody, but I
don't know, it was just so important
that I wanted to at least say so glad we
have it. Thank you for all the work
putting into it. Um and if there are any
thoughts that you have about even
strengthening it or making it easier for
staff to implement um you know by all
means put them in there.
>> Okay. There were uh the trainings that
occurred that started in the winter last
year was starting December from my
memory um was very detailed on what
staff needed to do when these instances
occurred. So much so with keywords,
phone calls to certain people, attorney
outreach, and then of course all of the
steps at the school sites um in most
cases where there was concerns for this
uh and a protocol and a flowchart. And
so we definitely feel that a thorough
training occurred. Um how I can go back
to director Michelle Griffith and and
have her take another look at the ARS to
see if there would be something we could
add. We also also want to be careful
we're not putting too specific detail in
there um for this particular purpose
similar to other safety protocols that
we have at the school sites where we
wouldn't have that in an AR. Um but we
can take another look at it and that's
something that we can even do offline.
>> Absolutely. It doesn't have to come back
to us at all. It's it's uh your AR to
implement and put in there.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, just to let you know that um
when we did do the training um Michelle
did one, I did one and we went forward
and were very explicit that it's
entirely different than it was a few
years back when some of us were
principles. And at that time, the
immigration could could um be on the
sidewalk but could not enter the school
grounds. And that happened during my
tenure as a principal. And we right away
informed parents, you know, just don't
come to school. You know, we're going to
be here until they leave and then we'll
call you back. That time there was no
texting or anything. So, we'll call you.
We'll call you. Now,
yes, they can come onto school grounds,
but we were very well informed
superintendent along with our legal
counsel, you must see a warrant or a
subpoena that's signed by a judge. If
it's not signed by a judge, you just
you're they're not
going to talk to anyone. They'll talk to
you and the principal and then we'll get
there as soon as we can. But it's very
explicit to all site administrators.
They went forward and did the same thing
with staff and teachers that were at the
school site too. So it's we can put it
in the ARS that it has to be that
documentation
but um we have made it very clear and
even when there are remnants of rumors
that are in the community there's a van
here and we heard
yes there was a van there it was an RCS
Redwood City police van it was not
immigration they were not doing anything
around the school that was immigration
and that came up, but there's that
hotline that we call and we gave parents
all that information of the hotline to
for them to call um if they are
suspicious. So, we can adjust and make
sure that that's in the ARS if that
makes you feel more comfortable. I know
principles, we're very fortunate that
our principles and our administrators at
the school sites have not changed hands.
they've changed hands, but it's been
internal people
>> that are now principles that also were
vice principles that went through that
training.
>> Uh, and so we are now with a couple, we
have three VPs, correct, that are brand
new to the district and Michelle and I
were talking that we should get them
together and just go through this
process with them because they were not
around didn't last.
>> Yeah. again it's um just you know it's
really just a request around uh I think
you actually touched on it a little bit
just does it survive a transition well
you know yeah so that's all
>> our instruments of power are limited as
a board of directors of a school
district but this is how you fight
fascism this is how you protect children
and I'm glad that we're doing it
>> um shall we move on uh the next one
thank you Wendy um and thanks John yeah
both of you for the updates on the
training and and reminding us of all the
work that's gone into it. Um, okay. Our
last one is the first reading in
discussion. This time of a board bylaw.
It's 9010 and it's on public statements.
>> This one was reviewed by the board
policy committee in May and is being
brought tonight. So, um, there has been
some time that passed. However, this
particular policy was strictly taken by
CSBA specifically and there were no
additional contributions that were made.
Um I I do believe that perhaps a
discussion is needed in this particular
topic. So we're available to answer any
questions and of course the board's
discussion.
>> All right. Uh go ahead.
>> Yeah, I'll just chime in that uh I feel
like we had a wonderful discussion at
our offsite that really emphasized the
importance of respectful and
constructive disagreement and being
willing to be a comfortable and safe
place for us to voice our different
points of view. and that's how we're
going to get to better results as a
board, right? Um, and the prior version
of this policy explicitly stated the
board believes that effective board
members have a responsibility to express
themselves, responsibility to express
themselves, whether in agreement or
disagreement with the board majority in
ways that promote the board's ability to
govern the district. And the red line
struck that paragraph and that kind of
jumped out at me because it's exactly
opposite uh what we talked about and
kind of where we landed as an offsite
that we have a a duty of care to the
district to the children to the staff to
go and speak up when we feel like the
board is going the wrong direction and I
want to make sure that we are not
adopting uh rules and regulations here
that step back from that. I want us to
step forward toward that.
David, did you want to leave that exact
wording or did you want to harmonize it
with what we're going to be putting in
our
>> you harmonize away policy committee uh
like do what you do? I I think that the
the wording is reasonable in terms of
what was there. So just like if the
lowest effort possible thing is like
sure no disagreement let's copy paste
and just keep the old language that's
good. If policy committee is requesting
like can we take the spirit of what was
discussed at the offsite and really make
it our own sure that sounds awesome too.
What I don't want to do is to step back
from saying like hey we should be a
place where we should be disagreeing
with each other cordially respectfully
professionally but like we should be a
place where vigorous debate is
happening.
>> I'm okay bringing this one back and
editing it for a second reading.
Can can I just clarify what is the
intent of this bylaw? I I thought the
intent of this bylaw was around not
around what discourse happens. I I
realize that statement discusses
discourse at a public meeting, but I
thought this was more about public
statements outside of the board meeting
to media organizations or something
along those lines. So, I had a totally
different read of that, which was out of
scope, take it out. um not a thing of
like hey we're having a discussion here
in the um board meeting. Now maybe I you
know I realize that's an assumption so
I'd like to check that assumption and
see and I don't know if we know what the
yeah what what the intent was.
I I was going to suggest if we go back
to the board memo, it gives a highlight
from CSBA about the intent and certainly
the changes and it does speak about the
board spokesperson or individual members
may make public statements on behalf of
the board and then also addressing first
amendment rights and so forth with as
board members. Um and to clarify whether
they're speaking it as individuals. But
yes, I do think that it's a public
statement
um premise right up front.
>> Yeah. And so that's why I thought that
the striking of that part about behavior
at the meetings was just not relevant to
the topic, but I I don't
it's a good hypothesis. I I I also don't
know why I was struck. Um honestly, I'm
I kind of like putting it back in uh
because even during it is discussion
during board meetings which are public
statements nonetheless, right? even if
it's a slightly different context. Um,
and to to David Weekley's point, like
yeah, I think it is important. I don't
think it harms us to to um reinforce
that this is something that we do
believe. Um, so that's my and for sake
of clarity, I assume that we like the
whole thing that was struck including
the end of the second that that
preceding sentence the and encourages
open discussion. I think that's fine to
keep as well. Um, but yeah,
>> thumbs up to open discussion.
Okay. Then what I would ask the policy
community to consider is does that
statement make more sense in bylaw 9323
which is around meeting conduct. I have
not read it. I just read the title. I
mean I have read it but I' I've only
just read the title now. I have not
reread it. Um and so I just wonder like
if you're looking to bring that back.
Again, I'm not against I like the we did
discuss wanting to have open and you
know um and uh you know um engaged
conversations. I just you know wondering
like does it make more sense to
does it belong in meeting contact or
does it belong in public statements?
I'll let you all decide and come in.
I guess procedurally does
does the policy committee need to take
this if there are any changes does do we
need to take this back and then go back
through a first reading or can we just
make amendments as is and that goes to
second read I assumed it was the latter
>> this conversation can I can type in and
easily document what it is that we'd
like to do certainly simply is
unstriking this section if that's as
easy it is sometimes there's a request
to go and words smmith it differently
and that's probably where we need more
time, but if it's as straightforward as
this, I can do that and bring it back as
a second reading as such if that's what
the the board is interested in.
>> Got it. I will acknowledge I'm usually
the the issue of word smithing, but I'm
I I I would remove myself from that
here. Like I'm perfectly fine with the
words
>> um as is. I I like it in the public
statements um because again for what I
mentioned, but open to hearing others
thoughts.
>> Yeah, I think it makes sense there. I'm
just doing a quick read on the 9323
>> because there's conduct in the board
meeting, but we also have an existence
that goes beyond just alternate
Wednesdays. And so we we may make
statements outside of this board
meeting, right, as individuals about
things that we believe. And some of
those beliefs may or not may or may not
be in alignment with the board majority.
Now, this bylaw covers what statements
can be made on behalf of the board.
Exactly. Right. Yes. So but but but I
think making it clear that when one is
expressing oneself as an individual
explicitly not speaking for the board
>> that that individual I is given
permission by this bylaw to make public
statements as an individual that may not
be in alignment with the board majority
as long as they clearly disclose this is
not the opinion of
>> I wouldn't imagine that any of our
bylaws could supersede your first
amendment rights to make you know free
speech statements but I just again I I I
don't know. I mean, I'm fine with I'm
not against the language there. I just,
you know, clearly CSB struck it for a
reason. Um, I don't totally know why.
Um, and I'm just wondering if because
it's not germanine to the topic. Um, but
that that that's that's not against
putting it back in if you think that
it's makes sense to put it there.
I think I imagine Wendy needs guidance.
So
I guess is there anyone opposed to
putting it back in in this policy? My my
general view is it's almost academic
which policy it goes in because like
they're all going to be governing in
some capacity. Obviously there's other
issues but does anyone
uh oppose putting this back in?
>> No. Yeah.
>> Good. Good for you, Wendy.
>> All right.
>> So I'll bring it back as second reading
and then include that those sentences
back in. Okay.
All
>> righty. Let's move on to our consent uh
agenda. Um can we get a motion to
approve?
>> Can I ask a question? Can we already
approve the agenda? But I know when I
talked to John, just to throw it out
there,
>> um there is a resolution under consent
and I was just wondering is that okay to
have under consent or whether that
should have been moved under action. So
>> uh seven 9.7
>> yes
>> it it is perfectly acceptable to have
9.7 uh for the uh third party
administrator because this is a
procedural item and not a policy item uh
for the district and I did check on that
when putting it on consent.
Thank
>> you.
I have one more quick comment. I forgot
to bring up last board meeting. Um I was
assigned Orion as my one of my schools
this calendar year.
>> Oh, if we're going to discuss it, that's
um about this isn't about whether it's
on the agenda. We're actually going to
discuss it. We can pull it off and treat
it as an action item uh and do that. So,
which item is it? I can change the
consent agenda at the consent time,
right? So, which item is it? Let's uh
9.2. Okay. Um so 9.2 two will move to
action and we'll discuss it right after
the consent.
>> Sure.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Um okay. So do we have a motion to
approve the consent to gi without 9.2?
>> So move.
>> Seconded.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
>> Great. Okay. Let's move on to 9.2 which
is the approval of the school
assignments and committee assignments
for board members from 2025 to 26.
Trusty King. Um, I I just wanted to put
it out there. My child does go to Ryan,
so I'm on campus often. If any other
trustee would like to have that
opportunity to visit the campus as part
of their school assignment, I could
switch with somebody.
>> No. Uh, go ahead, Cecilia.
>> I was going to say I don't think it
matters even if you were assigned to
Orion because anybody could go at any
time. So even though I just wanted to
put it out there in case I I think the
upside is that you'll have your ear to
the beat of what's going on at the
school and unusually Well, I don't know.
So, this is why we rotate, right?
Because there's pros and cons for
everything.
>> Yep. Okay. That I'm good saying.
>> Yeah. And and we should all be visiting
old schools all the time. So, Okay. Um
then let's make a motion to approve 9.2.
>> So, moved.
>> Is there a second?
>> I second.
>> All in favor?
>> I I
>> All right. Great. Okay. So, now we're on
to action items. This is 10.1. This is
readoption of the LCAP for the 2526
school year.
>> All right. Thank you guys. Um we are we
were asked by the county to bring this
back to the board for readtion. Um you
had the opportunity to see the changes
that were made. Some are really minor.
It has to do with our calculation of our
NPP, our minimum proportion uh
proportion
personality.
I I'd even said that wrong in PPP and so
we needed to make sure we had met that
threshold and so we thought we had met
it in the fall in the back in June and
then there was a calculation so we had
to that's what we just recalculated it
and we nothing really changed in the
amounts it was just making sure that we
were putting the correct numbers into
LCF for the calculator that calculates
the percentages that we need to meet.
Okay. So, we're just asking for um a
motion to approve our ALCAP. Um the
readoption of ALCAP.
>> Does anyone have questions or comments
on the readoption?
>> Seems pretty procedural. Um is there a
motion to approve?
>> I move that we read the LCAP for the 256
school year as amended.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
>> Thank you.
>> Great. Uh okay, so now we're on to 10.2.
2 which is approval of the expanded
learning uh opportunities program for
2526.
>> Is there any questions
>> in regard to this action item? This is
the expanded learning program that
serves our students you know after
school.
>> I don't have questions but just simple
comment. Um I just want to say that I
appreciate the all the effort, all the
work that is put into this after school
programs. Um um one of the things that I
really appreciate is the youth voice. Um
when they talk about building
self-esteem, personal power and
responsibility um and of course the
partnerships that we have with all the
um all the partners. So um I again I
appreciate um all the work that we are
doing, everyone that's involved. So
thank you so much.
Yeah, this ELOP has been a great boon
for the school district. Um, being able
to do this extended learning has been
been outstanding. Um, so thanks to the
staff and and the partners that are
putting this together and this one, you
know, really doubles down on SEAL and
MTSS. Um, youth voice as you mentioned
and and and look the choices for you the
students. Um, lots of high rich high
interest enrichment. Um there's like
steam in there, music, dance, sports. Um
and then we're bringing, you know,
mental health hours to honian hours to,
you know, some of the key sites so that,
you know, students can access support
when they need it. Um so it like aligns
perfectly with the LCAP that we just
read uh just before it, you know, across
the all the three goals of it. So thanks
for the excellence and quality work. Um
is there a motion to approve?
>> I move to approve.
>> Seconded. All in favor? I
>> I.
>> All right. Um 10.3 is adoption of
resolutions four and five. It's the
approval of the soul sourcing resolution
and resolution to authorize technology
procurement under PCC 201182 for EV
charging stations across the district
sites.
>> Uh good evening, Dr. Baker, board
members, and members of the public. Uh
tonight I'm seeking approval of
resolutions four and five.
Uh resolution four approves a uh sole
source resolution to establish power
flex as the district standard for EV
charger software and hardware. Uh
resolution five authorizes procurement
under public country code public
contract code 20118.2
for EV charging stations across the
district sites.
Uh some background uh we have nearly 100
uh EV chargers throughout the district.
Um seven seven electric buses are with
those chargers. Um on April 30th, 2025
uh shall recharge discont uh sorry
discontinued software nationwide
impacting six uh sites. uh working with
NB5 our energy consultant uh railroad
city evaluated replacement software uh
from providers. So now we're seeking to
standardize
uh with a well-established
uh vendor that can support both public
and fleet charging uh but power flex was
identified as the ideal solution.
Um currently power flex software applied
to would be applied to all the 84
chargers.
Uh 64 EV box chargers need replacements.
Um no longer supported. Uh BTC chargers
at the three sites will remain. Um Power
Flex is compatible with them. Uh Roy
Cloud and Hoover installations
uh already contracted with Power Flex
and that's through the solar project.
Um some key benefits uh reliability,
consistency
and scalability across the district of
the EV chargers network. This will
reduce their operational risk and staff
uh time managing multiple vendors.
Any questions?
>> Thanks Martin. Um anyone have questions
for Martin about this these two
revolutions? Yeah,
>> my main question here was that um I
appreciate the optionality given in the
resolution to choose Knack or SEJ1772
type one um or CCS. Uh I will note that
as of last year effectively every single
North American EV manufacturer has
standardized on Knack. It's also an SE
standard now. So if we are deploying
these with an intended lifetime of 10 15
years uh by the time they're midway
through their lifespan substantially
every car that they're going to be
servicing from any manufacturer is going
to be uh knack compatible and so I
wouldn't want us to make a regrettable
decision of going with a vendor that's
using a standard that has some amount of
adoption today but over the course of
the lifetime will will become useless
for its needs. So that's just my main uh
concern. I want to make sure that we're
future proofing our deployment
>> and and we are actually have uh Megan
Dah uh who's our NV consultant online.
Uh Megan, can you answer that?
>> Good evening everyone. Um totally hear
and understand that next is now the
standard. um we just didn't want to be
limiting in the um the sole source
resolution um because had we done this a
year ago you know that or two years ago
that wouldn't have been the standard. So
um you know the market is rapidly
changing which is why we're in this
predicament in the first place. Um so
just trying to keep it as open as
possible and flexible but certainly hear
that um and can you know consider that
in the request for proposals?
>> Great. Thanks for that question and the
answer. Um the any any other comments,
questions?
All right. Can I get a motion to
approve?
>> I move to approve 10.3.
>> All right. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All in favor? I
>> I great thank you.
>> Thanks. Okay. Uh 10.4 is adoption of
resolution number seven and this is the
approval of education code and title
five options for teaching assignments.
>> This is um a continued request uh as
elective classes are being formed. So
these particular individuals um will are
seeking the ed code waiver advantage to
be able to teach a subject matter that
might be outside their credential for
this one period of the day.
>> Great. We saw these last week um
different ones but the similar similar
topic. Any questions or comments?
>> Okay. Can I get a motion to approve?
>> Second.
>> Seconded.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
>> Great. We're on to board and
superintendent reports. It's been one
week since our last meeting. Um, who
would like to start?
>> I went to a lovely barbecue hosted by
CSEA and got to know some of their reps
and have a have a nice chat. So, I was
warmly welcomed there and came away with
a fidget spinner that my boys are
continuing to play with. So, thank you
so much CSA for hosting me.
Um I attended the DACA meeting, their
first meeting um at Hoover and so um I
and I spoke to Dr. Baker. Um it was nice
yet it was not very well attended and so
we talked about maybe getting try to get
the parent engagement a little more. Um
we had four schools represented but you
know we have so many more. So, um,
that's just the thing and I know that,
you know, to to me it makes me sad
because it's like we want to help the
community. um we want to hear from them
and so I'm there all the time so that
they can get motivated and show up and
so um the department is trying making
phone calls and sending emails and so
it's just um but again it was nice um
it's just unfortunately uh Katherine
couldn't talk about the agenda because
they didn't have a quorum and also um
some of the topics they wanted to talk
about she wants to make sure that she
talks about it when more um parents are
present. So, and that's it for me.
>> Um, I could not attend the DAC meeting
um because I was at the
Sanonteo County Office of Education
school funding task force meeting uh
which I think is the last of their
series. Um is productive. The county
office staff um prepared a report just
discussing and laying out some of the
what the issue is, the background as
well as um outlining a few potential
solutions as discussed through the prior
task force meetings. Um it was it was
good to get the coalition of multiple
districts within the county, get their
thoughts, get some alignment that
there's, you know, an issue that we're
all facing and try to figure a path
forward. Um we also had uh Capital
Adviserss, which is an education
advocacy firm um based in Sacramento,
talk a little bit about um political
considerations for each of the
approaches and I think that was helpful
for the discussion in potentially
narrowing down um what approach the
county wants to focus on. I think where
we landed was um I think the next step
is probably to really focus on an
approach and then there's at least an
appetite among some folks to potentially
get legislation um introduced uh for the
next session but I think there's quite a
bit of work to go on there. So uh still
moving forward but that's the update.
>> Anything else? I don't have anything to
report Dr. Baker. Nothing to report.
Okay,
>> great. Thanks for those updates. Oh, lot
lots of good stuff going on. Uh, okay.
So, there's an information item. Anyone
have questions, comments about the
information?
No. Okay. Correspondence.
I continue to receive correspondence
about our urgent need to place a
taxpayer representative on the bond
committee.
Anyone
else? No. Okay. Uh, other business
suggested items for future agenda.
[Music]
>> Do we um do we have time for the set
aside for the board self-evaluation
discussion?
>> Oh, we have to schedule that. Thanks.
Um,
good, good, good call. You're right. I
forgot that um because I had it in my
head that we were going to do it at the
retreat, but we filled that time up
really fast. So, yeah, good one. Let me
uh figure out the right time to get that
on.
>> And just to be a broken record, the
other thing that we wanted to do with
the retreat was to figure out a content
calendar for when we want to do deep
dives into certain media topics. I
emailed that list to both of you. So,
there we go.
Yeah, we we discussed it and sort of
prioritized the list and thought you
should have a one-on-one with
superintendent first and make sure and
then we can bring it back to future
agendas in the future
>> future future agendas. Yeah.
>> Um
Okay, great. No. Yeah. Okay. Trustes
meeting calendar. Everything looks good
on the meeting calendar so far.
>> No changes. Okay.
>> And adjournment. Can I get a motion to
adjurnn? I move we adjurnn.
Second. All in favor? I. Good night.