There were no public comments. 

Mr. McGinty presented and discussed in detail the following change orders: 

CMAR Contingency No.21 is for overtime hours for Sierra Concrete in the amount of $20,478.46, it was noted this is integral to completing the project. CMAR Contingency No. 24 is for the scope of work on the 2nd-floor hallway, carpet versus vinyl composition tile (VCT). This is a change from VCT to carpet. The carpet will help with noise and will not crack. Owner allowance No. 4.27 is a cost associated with the final approved civil revisions dated 12/2/21 in the amount of $244 282.15. This is due to the road, which was minimized from $455,000. This will also come out of the contingency fund. Owner allowance use No. 4.26, changes on concrete and signage in the amount of $63,894.65. 

Mr. Lengsavath asked if the subcommittee has any questions. Ms. Diggins said this all looks straightforward. Mr. Gibson said if Mr. McGinty recommends these and we are still within budget then he does not have any questions. Mr. Ercan added this will be presented to the entire board for approval at the next board meeting. 

Mr. Anthony Vu presented the safety plan and discussed that CASLV wanted to update the threat assessment for each campus. A few companies were contacted, however, CASLV Centennial Hills Campus had connections to the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS' cost and timetable were a better fit. Mr. Vu discussed in detail the universal recommendations for campuses, the network, and specific recommendations for each campus. A written report will be presented to the board. 

Universal recommendations for campuses

Intercom System

• Loud and clear
• Should be audible for any student in the buildings and outside areas

Traffic Bollards in Front Parking Lots

• Protects pedestrians and facilities from vehicles
• Should be installed on the outer edge of any walkway adjacent to the road

Security Cameras

• More cameras would be better for the safety
• Should be at least 1 at every entry/egress

Recommendations for the network 

De-centralize crisis management plans

• Each campus is different & has their own unique layout
• Personnel (number & quality) will vary also
• School leaders should be responsible for their own campus’ plan

Dedicated Security Personnel

• Armed Security Guard ($32/hr) or Unarmed Security Guard ($27/hr)
• Campus Monitors (alternative to guards)
• Priority should be Security Matters (not any other duties)

Mr. Ercan explained this will be brought to the October board meeting. Any urgent items will be brought to the August board meeting. Mr. Vu asked for opinions from the subcommittee on having armed security guards on campus. Mr. Gibson said he does not have a problem as long as they are trained. Having a concealed weapons permit is not enough. Ms. Diggins said she agrees and we would need to make sure they keep up on necessary training. We would need to have a clear line and boundaries set.

Mr. Lengsavath added we do need to be extra careful having children around. They really need to know what they are doing and need to have more than the bare minimum qualifications. Mr. Gardberg asked if there are any financial concerns in doing this. Mr. Nick explained he would need to evaluate the budget. Mr. Gibson added we might want to stagger this and start with a retired officer or FBI agent as Director of Security. Ms. Diggins noted that the board will need to make decisions on prioritizing armed security guards as well as adding more cameras. Ms. Diggins said she likes Mr. Gibson's idea of a Director of Security who can then start building out what the infrastructure needs to look like. 

Mr. Gibson said he can check with his contact for recommendations and he suggests we start with a Director of Security in addition to the analysis in mid-September. Ms. Diggins would like this communicated to the PTO presidents and families that this is in process. Maybe include a timeline and note the analysis is happening in mid-September. 

Ms. Peevy discussed two different perspectives, one being teachers and the other central office staff including principals and assistant principals. Prior to COVID-19, we had planned to adjust the teachers' salaries but due to COVID-19, we were not able to do so because of the financial situation. We did put it into effect for the upcoming school year. Based on the employee engagement survey, everyone seemed very pleased. On average it is a 10-11% pay increase for the upcoming school year. 

The second perspective is based on central office staff, principals, and assistant principals, Ms. Peevy said she has it broken down into three different categories. For assistant principals the median increase is about 11%, for principals, it is a little higher at about 19% which stems from the additional responsibilities of being a principal. CASLV central office staff median is about 17%. Ms. Peevy added that Ms. Diggins has been sent copies of numerous emails received from different staff members from assistant principals, and registrars to principals saying they are very appreciative of the salary increase they received as well as leadership and guidance. 

Ms. Peevy added Mr. Ercan had been looking at this as he wanted to be sure we were being competitive with other charter schools and CCSD. Based upon that we had a meeting with principals to see if they were interested in being on a salary scale similar to teachers but it did not seem like they were interested in that. They expressed they would like it to be more merit-based. We wanted to come up with a formula so we can be fair and consistent. Mr. Ercan came up with a metric to be fair and consistent. 

Ms. Diggins said Mr. Ercan was given a 10% increase this year and he is at half the percentage level of the principals and central office staff and asked if this needs to be considered. Mr. Lengsavath said he tries to take it as is and that 10% seems on the light side but asked what the subcommittee thinks. Mr. Gibson said he would like to see logic so he can understand the movement from the highest tier to the lowest tier, and that will help him make a judgment. He needs to see the actual numbers, and what the average difference is. Mr. Ercan stated he is OK with 10% and he prefers to see a retention stipend for the teachers and staff rather than an additional increase to his salary. Ms. Peevy said she will email the salary information to the subcommittee. 

The subcommittee requested this be tabled and added to the August 27th board meeting agenda. Ms. Diggins said an action item is to give flexibility to the board. A report out of this meeting will come with additional information being provided to the subcommittee and they will analyze it and see if there are other recommendations to report back to the full board.  Mr. Gibson would like any new positions that do not exist now to be included. He would like to see the full amount as though everything is filled. He would also like Mr. Nick to provide what is available to spend on additional raises. 

Mr. Ercan said he would like to find a source to give all teachers and staff members a retention payment. Mr. Nick said he will check on this as well as an additional grant opportunity. 

There were no public comments.