Mrs. Rodriguez led the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America (USA)

There were no public comments

Mr. Wright explained that a cell phones was being considered for implementation. He suggested the possibility of allowing flip phones, but noted that this was just a consideration. 

Mr. Solkovits added that some school districts permit students to use their phones during specific times, such as nutrition or lunchtime, allowing parents to text their children then. Although there is no perfect policy, he believed it was important to discuss and find a solution, noting that more school districts and states were adopting similar approaches.

Mr. Hussey gave a summary of the proposed goals:
Goal 1: It aims to provide all students with a high-quality education, equitable access to standards-based instruction, innovative strategies and programs, and rigorous learning, to ensure academic growth in LEA math and science. Addressing areas of need directly and providing tailored support to students requiring additional assistance for academic growth.

• Offering targeted intervention for the EL (English Learner) population.
• Sending teachers to professional development opportunities.
• Building a culture of data-driven instruction and reflection.
• Focusing on instructional equity.
• Ensuring all educational partners have access to updated technology and data.
• Maintaining a fully credentialed teaching staff and ensuring proper assignments.
• Staffing a full administrative team to support all educators.

Goal 2: All students graduate college and career ready, with an emphasis on increasing the graduation rates for students with disabilities, Latinx, English learners, African American students, foster youth and homeless youth. The actions being taken to achieve this goal include:

• Continuing to develop and expand CTE (Career and Technical Education) pathways.
• Providing opportunities for students to explore and expand their career pathways.
• Supporting A-G and AP test pass rates.
• Offering ongoing professional development for counselors and staff.
• Maintaining a counselor-to-student ratio of under 1:400 to ensure proper services.
• Contracting and utilizing college and career readiness programs.
• Continuing to offer summer school and credit recovery options for all students.
• Exploring the expansion of online schooling options, even during the regular school year, following the trend of many schools.

Goal 3: All parents and guardians in the school community have authentic and safe opportunities to provide input through regular, effective two-way communication for shared decision-making. The action steps for this goal include:

• Maintaining strong collaboration with parents.
• Ensuring easy access to attendance updates, addressing concerns raised by both parents and teachers.
• Increasing communication between homes and schools.
• Continuing funding for the marketing coordinator role.

Goal 4: To provide a safe, inclusive, and equitable learning environment that meets the social, emotional, mental health, and physical needs of all students through multi-tiered systems of support, targeted efforts for vulnerable student populations, and sufficient resources. The action steps for this goal include:

• Continuing to employ school-based therapists to support student mental health and well-being in the wellness center.
• Funding a new PSA (Pupil Services and Attendance) council, which monitors attendance, visits student homes, and ensures students return to school if they leave for any reason.
• Ensuring clean and safe environments that are well-maintained.
• Continuing to provide a full-time school nurse, athletic trainers and LVN.
• Implementing MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support), including PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports).

Mr. Hussey concluded by stating that the cost of implementing each goal would be as follows: Goal 1 would cost $19,031,512, Goal 2 $2,969,415, Goal 3 $473,484, and Goal 4 $15,426,811, with the total amounting to $37,901,222. 

 

Mr. Delgado presented the 2024-25 budget for approval, emphasizing that its passage would enable them to start projects as soon as the coming week. 

• Front Signage: Permits are in process for a new digital marquee, corner front signage, and lighting.
• Main Building Hallways: Plans include painting and decor for the A, B, C, D hallways to create a more cohesive look, similar to a Starbucks-inspired design, which has been well-received by students.
• Classroom Modernization: 20 classrooms will be updated with movable desks for collaborative spacing, new paint, and decor. Classroom updates have incorporated teacher input and work will continue during school breaks.
• Student Store: Revitalization funded by ASB will include a reorganization with better shelving and a fresh paint job.
• P.E. Area: The blacktop area, basketball hoops, and tennis courts will be resurfaced, repainted, and repaired.
• Stadium: Updates will include new painting, scoreboards, bleachers, LED lighting, and audio phase 2 improvements, currently in the design and permitting phase.
• School Safety: Wireless access door control will be implemented, allowing key access via IDs with designated permissions. The system is battery operated and traditional keys would remain in use for emergencies.
• Facilities: Enhancements include new paint, equipment, and electronic work carts.

In response to queries from Mr. Gregg, Mr. Delgado confirmed that teachers have been consulted on classroom changes, which will be carried out during summer and winter breaks. Mr. Hussey clarified that bungalow improvements are part of a long-term plan by the district to replace them with buildings.

Mr. Wright expressed concern over the basketball areas, to which Mr. Delgado replied that major repairs might require a complete overhaul according to a submitted quote. Mr. Gregg suggested adding shade structures to outdoor basketball courts, and Mr. Delgado mentioned that heat-repelling paint might be an alternative.

Finally, Mr. Wrightinformed the board that he and Mr. Delgado would visit different companies in early July to explore options for item mentioned under “facilities”.

Mr. Delgado explained that they were planning to create a special segregated fund to address various capital projects. The proposal in front of the board outlined existing conditions and a development timeline for projects over the next few years. He highlighted the need to establish a deferred maintenance account to manage both short-term and long-term projects, suggesting an initial fund balance of $15 million to combat aging infrastructure and safety concerns while updating the educational environment.

Mr. Wood added that the recent analysis showed an unrestricted, undesignated fund balance of approximately $27 million, with an expected addition of $3 million by year-end, totaling around $30 million. He emphasized that designating a portion of this fund for deferred maintenance projects would demonstrate a commitment to these efforts, despite it not being a legal obligation.

Mr. Delgado continued by pointing to a long-range plan on the second page, showcasing 2025-2026 projects, which would cost around $14 million. He noted that if the proposed $15 million fund was established, they would then only need an additional $12.5 million since they currently have $2.5 million.

Mr. Gregg inquired whether LAUSD, as the landlord, would bear any portion of these costs or if it would solely be our responsibility. Mr. Delgado responded that most costs would be our responsibility but noted that LAUSD was funding significant projects currently like the sidewalk, and upcoming $20 million worth of projects including a HVAC system upgrade.

Mr. Gregg also asked about funding for the stadium and gym rehabilitation from LAUSD bonds. Mr. Delgado confirmed that some funds were available, including money for bleachers. Mr. Gregg pointed out that LAUSD had received $180 million from various bonds, suggesting they should be able to contribute to these costs and especially contribute towards the proposed $15 million fund balance. Mr. Hussey agreed and said that he would continue to work with the district to secure bond money, but also stressed the importance of demonstrating our willingness to contribute as well.

Mr. Delgado presented an itemized list of all the projects previously discussed. 

Mr. Gregg pointed out that Phase 1 and 2 projects totaled $16 million, while only $15 million had been set aside. He asked about the timeframe for these phases. Mr. Delgado responded that all the projects listed would be completed within the year and that they were implementing cost-saving measures to address the deficits.

CharterSAFE is a JPA that most charter schools are members of and offers extensive insurance coverage with an unmatched $55 million umbrella for general liability. Other organizations typically offer only $10 million in coverage. CharterSAFE includes coverage for directors, officers, general liability, workplace violence, and workers' compensation.

After extensive negotiations, Mr. Wood noted that while other charter schools face double-digit rate increases, the proposed renewal would see only a 3.25% increase in workers' compensation rates and a 1.2% decrease in the general package rates. The general liability would be $482,000, workers' compensation $215,000, and the combined package $697,199. He requested board approval for this proposal.

based on submitted budgets. At the last finance committee meeting, they received delayed budgets from the math department and a budget proposal from athletics. Despite the delay, the math department's request for $8,000 is covered by a contingency fund, requiring no budget changes.

Regarding the athletic budget, he acknowledged ongoing discussions with the athletic department. Some of their budget needs fall under supplies, while others are covered by the school-wide budget. He requested the board to allocate an additional $100,000 to the athletic budget to meet summer needs, noting that the department spent about $120,000 last year. He emphasized their efforts to improve the athletic department's budget management and asked for official approval of the additional funds for items like uniforms.

Ms. Ilyas summarized the adopted budget, stating that its purpose is to provide educational partners and the state with the school's operating budget, outlined within the LCAP. The budget was created using the governor's budget and Department of Finance assumptions, based on an enrollment of 2,937 students with an ADA of 2,731.

Mr. Wood highlighted that the budget incorporates the next year's COLA of 1.07%, revenue from sources like lottery funds, and expenses including STRS and PERS rates, all based on state-provided figures.

Revenue and Expenditure comparison: The second interim projected revenue of $55 million, with a revised projection of $54 million for the year-end, and $45 million for the next year. On the expense side, the projection was $50 million, expected to remain consistent by year-end, with a projected $44 million for the adopted budget.

2024-25 Adopted Budget Revenue: This showed how much the school would receive from state aid, federal, state, and local revenues, with a percentage breakdown of the $45 million total. LCFF State Aid will receive $36,389,803 (70%), Federal Revenues $1,756,417 (4%), State Revenues $2,324,661 (5%) and Local Revenues $4,766,881 (14%).

Estimated Actuals vs Adopted Budget: This is showed the changes within each of the budget categories. She pointed out an overall projected decline of $8.9 million in revenue from the current year to the next. The decline is due to:

 

• LCFF Revenue - due to declining enrollment estimated at 225 students ($1,786,829)
• Federal:
  • CARES Act funding sunsetting: ($2,131,753)
  • Decreased Federal Cafeteria Revenue accounting for less students ($31,464)
• State:
  • Decreased State Cafeteria Revenue accounting for less students: ($59,042)
  • Decreased State Lottery: ($52,128)
  • Supplemental Block Grant – anticipating district to cut off funding source: ($358,773)
  • Reporting of the following state revenues as part of the restricted, beginning fund balance:
    • Arts/Music Block Grant: $1,011,080
    • Prop 28 (Arts/Music in Schools): $272,731
    • A-G Completion Grant: $392,001
• Other Local:
  • Decrease in Special Ed AB602 Revenue – funding tied to enrollment: ($192,288)
  • Decrease in COP Grant Revenue: ($61,055)
  • Net Investments, not being accounted for OPEB Related – ($2.12M)

Mr. Wood added that this decline does not account for $2.1 million tied to the OPEB account (retirement benefits). Previously included in the general budget, the OPEB account will now be reported separately due to being fully funded from investment gains. This change ensures transparency in showing how the fund is used and its investment gains, separate from the general budget.

Adopted Budget Expenditure Summary: This showed the allocation per category and the percentage of the overall budget, with salaries and benefits comprising 71% of the total budget expenses.

Mr. Solkovits inquired if pay raises were included in these numbers. Mr. Wood explained that the current budget does not reflect potential salary increases due to pending negotiations. The budget being presented is exclusive of any summary increases. Once agreements are reached, the financial impact of salary increases will be shown.

Mr. Solkovits further asked how the agreed pay increases would be accounted for. Mr. Wood responded that the funding for pay increases would come from the budget surplus being reported, and any additional funds needed for the current year would come from reserves. For future years, there would have more flexibility with personnel changes and other adjustments.

Estimated Actuals vs. Adopted Budget: It is projected that there would be a $6.6 million decrease in expenses from this year to next year. This decrease is coming from:

• Certificated Salaries:
  • Increase for step/column: $246,550
  • Not Replacing 5 FTE’s: ($504,000)
  • Decreasing auxiliaries tied to ESSER/CARES Act funds: ($247,000)
• Employee Benefits:
• No OPEB Contributions, program is fully funded and therefore savings of ($4,578,332)
• Increase in health premiums: $118,821
• Supplies:
• Reduced Materials/Supplies & Non-Capital Expenses tied to ESSER/CARES act funds: ($962,282)
• Services:
• Reduced instructional consultants tied to ESSER/CARES act funds: ($901,075)

The budget currently shows a $1.2 million surplus. However, this surplus is contingent on the outcome of upcoming salary negotiations. If these negotiations do not go as hoped, the surplus could become a deficit of around same amount. In such a case, the board might need to use reserves for the current year and consider potential impacts on future years.

Mr. Kofahl explained he was voting NO because he reviewed the packet provided for the meeting and found that the discussed items were not included. He wanted to examine the numbers but could not do so as they were not in the packet.

Mr. Wood responded that the full details were included in the detailed lines, and what was being presented now, was a summary version. He noted that if the board had required a line-by-line breakdown before the meeting, they were more than prepared to discuss and answer questions.

Ms. Rodriguez outlined the hiring process for Director, Chief, and Executive-level positions, detailing a comprehensive twelve-step procedure. Initially, the process begins with the review and approval of the job description, including updating it to reflect the role’s responsibilities and ensuring salary ranges are competitive and within budget. A new hire requisition form is then created and submitted for approval by the Executive Director and Chief Business Officer.

Following approval, the job is posted on platforms like Indeed and Edjoin, and the vacancy is announced internally. The position remains open for two weeks to attract sufficient candidates. Resume screening is conducted next, where resumes are reviewed for key qualifications, and collaboration with relevant senior staff occurs to select candidates for interviews.

The process of selecting an interview panel involves choosing members with diverse expertise and perspectives. Human Resources then schedules the interviews and prepares a set of legally sound, fair, and relevant questions. The first round of interviews includes structured questioning, rating responses on a scale of 1 to 3, and completing individual ranking forms. After the interviews, panel members discuss and rank candidates to shortlist for the second round.

The second round involves asking a different set of situational questions and similarly rating and ranking responses. Once the second round is complete, the panel compares and discusses candidates to make a final decision. A reference check is then conducted to validate the candidate’s suitability.

The feedback from the reference checks is shared internally with the hiring team to inform the final decision. Upon selecting a candidate, the offer letter and employment agreement are reviewed by the Executive Director or their designee and must be ratified by the Board. The candidate is then offered the position, given instructions for background checks and new hire paperwork, and the onboarding process is initiated upon acceptance of the offer.

Mr. Wright inquired about how to ensure equity in the panel selection process to avoid complaints similar to those he received previously. He questioned whether the same panel should handle both rounds of interviews or if a separate panel should be assigned to the second round.

In response, Mr. Solkovits shared his perspective from extensive hiring experience, stating that he has never used different panels for different interview stages. He instead emphasized that the focus should be on selection of the panel and suggested that clarity in the process is essential. He also proposed the idea of providing binders with policies for board members to help them understand the process better, as he had faced challenges when he first joined as a board member. 

A board member inquired about the use of the same interview panel for different rounds, asking if it was to maintain consistency, as their corporate experience involved different panels for each round, with each assessing different aspects before a final decision.

Ms. Rodriguez explained that maintaining consistency throughout the interview process is the reason for having the same panel. She clarified that the panel is selected based on the position being filled and the individuals the candidate will work with. For positions such as ones being discussed, the panel includes may include HR, a board member, union members, an administrative director, a teacher, and other relevant representatives to ensure diversity.

Mr. Solkovits raised two concerns. First, he questioned if consistency is the goal/reason, why the board members are not involved in the initial interviews, suggesting that consistency might be compromised if board members are not familiar with the candidates' progress throughout the interview.

Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged the question, explaining that in the recent process, the goal was to filter out candidates who did not meet the position's criteria during the initial interviews. She noted that this process is designed to streamline the selection for the final board review.

Mr. Wright added that, particularly for high-level positions like the Chief, it would be beneficial for the board to be involved in the initial screening to ensure they are familiar with the candidates and the reasons for their advancement.

Mr. Solkovits recommended adopting a practice where background checks were conducted on all final candidates to ensure thorough vetting. He recommended considering a similar approach to screen all top candidates to avoid starting over if a preferred candidate declines the offer.

He also suggested a hybrid approach for developing interview questions. He proposed that, in addition to the standard questions, HR could collaborate with staff members from various departments who have relevant expertise to help craft the questions. This way, questions would benefit from diverse perspectives, even if those staff members are not part of the interview panel. While this approach would add an extra step for HR, it could enhance the quality of the questions and ensure they are well-rounded and relevant.

The VAPA Assistant position is a part-time role funded by Prop 28. This position is intended to assist with the band music and choreography.

Mr. Wright praised the band for winning numerous awards at external events but expressed concern that the school's own students were missing out on their performances. He pointed out that other schools have their bands perform at football games and other events, and he inquired about plans to for the band to perform at their own school to boost school spirit and student engagement. He needed to know before voting.

Mr. Hussey responded that Mr. Bennett would coordinate with the music department to ensure the band performs at upcoming school events.

Mr. Solkovits clarified that the VAPA Assistant position, by law, cannot replace existing roles but must enhance them. He explained that the position is intended to provide additional support to the band teacher and other teachers, ensuring it adds value rather than supplanting current resources.

Mr. Hussey discussed the five local indicators on the California dashboard that are assessed at the school level.

He reported that for Priority 1, which includes having all teachers appropriately assigned, access to curriculum and online instructional materials, and maintaining safe, clean, and functional school facilities, school will report meeting the standard.

For Priority 2, the implementation of state standards, school will self-report compliance.

Regarding Priority 3, parent and family engagement, school will also report meeting the standard.

Priorities 4 and 5 are assessed directly on the dashboard.

For Priority 6, school climate, which involves ensuring safety and connectedness in at least one grade, school will report compliance.

Finally, for ensuring access to a broad course of study, Mr. Hussey expressed confidence in the school’s excellent provision of a variety of classes and levels for all students and will report meeting this standard as well. He concluded that the school will report meeting all local performance indicators, as it did the previous year.

Mr. Hussey led the discussion on the annual performance-based Charter School Division (CSD) oversight visit report for 2023-2024.

He provided an update on the annual performance oversight visit from CSD, which was recently conducted. He expressed gratitude for the opportunity to discuss the school's progress and noted that including this on the agenda would help demonstrate the school's focus on improvement.

He summarized the ratings from last year and this year:

• In governance, the school received a 4 last year and the same rating this year.
• For student achievement, the rating remained at 3 both years.
• In organizational management, programs, and operations, the rating improved from 2 last year to 3 this year, thanks to the efforts of Ms. Rodriguez, Marissa, and Rocio, particularly in facilitating the completion of all required trainings and updating credentials.
• Fiscal operations maintained a consistent rating of 4.

There were no areas noted for growth or improvement in governance, organizational management, operations, or finance. However, in student achievement, the focus is on improving scores in ELA and math, despite already scoring higher than the state average. This upcoming year, particular attention will be given to English learners and students with special needs to ensure they receive the necessary resources and access for growth.

There are also efforts to address the needs of struggling subgroups by closely monitoring SBAC scores.

The Board went into closed session at 6:37PM

There were no items to report on from closed session

Open session reconvened at 8:00 PM