2/9/14 OUSD Trustees’ Meeting - OEA notes

YouTube video of meeting

 No public comment.

Employees of the month: Dara Slevin (certificated) and Dawn Kurisu (classified).

The Board approved the OEA request for collective bargaining.

An agreement was approved Premier Security Solutions for an alarm system at the new district office.

CA School Boards Association: Trustee Julie Rossiter placed her name for consideration as a Contra Costa County representative on the CSBA Delegate Assembly. Discussion By Trustees Butler and Krumholz re: potential delegates familiar to them and process of nominations (which were unclear or not received by them). Trustees supported three delegates including Trustee Rossiter.

Parcel Tax: Dean Burnick member of Parcel Tax Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee. Audit showed that funds from Measure A and B are appropriately spent. The Committee recommends that the district communicate information within school communication resources and via community communication resources. Currently all members of the PTICOC are not staggered and therefore suggest that in the interest of continuity that the committee membership be staggered by 2:3. By laws will need to be modified.

Governor’s Proposed 2014-15 Budget:

5.5 billion one time and ongoing Prop 98 (to help restore); 11.4% increase however under Local Control Funding districts are diversified. OUSD expected to receive an additional $417.00 per ADA.

Under LCFF no school district will receive less than previously funded prior to LCFF

State identified cola: 0.86%

cola: 0.86% for special eduation

Supplemental grant percentage for OUSD: 1.159%

All districts will equally share any state funded provided colas

Trustee Butler asked how input is collated for $ decisions as she wants to see all stakeholders included. Unclear response. The former Fiscal Advisory Committee that included two OEA reps and two CSEA reps has been disbanded. 

The state now identifies “small class size” as 24 students.

2014-15 Calendar presented: based on Curriculum Committee input

1^st student day: Tuesday August 25, last student day: Friday June 12

Holidays aligned with AUHSD (high school starting on Monday rather Wednesday as in the past)

Friday, August 22, Monday, January 26, Monday, March 9 full day staff development

Friday, August 29 and Monday, February 27 half-day staff development

Mrs. Marshall was complimentary re: the efforts of the Curriculum Committee members and Trustee Severson expressed his gratitude as well

Portable classrooms: $115,000 per year lease; portables range in age from 5-45 years

$443,000.00 is cost to buy out leases,  $457,000.00 to replace worst portable classrooms with newer portables; $2,300,00 to replace portables with green fab buildings

8 portables considered in poorest condition

$8,000,000.00 balance remaining from Pulte funds

Board Reports:

Trustee Butler:

Advocacy Day

CSBA Training on Human Resources and Collective Bargaining

Trustee Krumholz complimented the options available to students at OIS

Dr Jaconette:

Bay Sci grant a la LHS building awareness

Trustee Butler again requested that LCFF clarity be included on the next agenda. See Ed Code on this.

Minutes respectfully submitted by,

Colleen Sullivan

OEA VP

Board Highlights from 1/13/14 Meeting: OEA reports

 Video link to Board Meeting 1.13.2014
Charles Shannon, OEA President invited the School Board Members to the 2/8/14 CTA breakfast.

Employees of the Month: Mike Agers (OIS), Pam Chang IA (SH)

Minutes:  Trustee Butler requested that committee assignments be included in the minutes for the purpose of public transparency. Approved 3-2 (Trustees Krumholz, Butler and Severson approved).

This item was presented as the last item of the evening, however I have chosen to move it to the front of the minutes as it concerns OEA membership. (CS)

Under the PERS benefits “umbrella,” OUSD pays a lifetime $50.00 per month medical supplement to its retirees. About half the Contra Costa districts have these benefits. Loreen Farrell presented this information to the Board with the interest of ending the ongoing supplemen optiont via restructuring the districts benefits with PERS or a new provider. At this point it is unclear whether current retirees would be “grandfathered” and continue receiving the medical supplement. Trustee Moran expressed concern that lifetime benefits will eventually encroach on general fund.

A committee will be formed with OEA and management representation to study the issue. OEA has requested the option of selecting an outside expert who may assist all involved in making a sound decision. To be continued.

Annual Financial Audit Report by Cichella and Tokunaga

The accountants found that OUSD is compliant in its financial accounting as of the close of June, 2013. Available reserve should be at 3%. The auditor found that the school district has reserves of 20%. Report approved 5-0

Interdistrict Transfer Policies

Strustee Butler asked how many transfers accepted from 2012-2014

Employee requests:

2009 – 2010:  23 applied, 21 approved

2010 - 2011:  17 applied, all accepted

2011 – 2012: same as above

2012  - 2013: 15 applied, all accepted

2013 – 2014:  15 applied, all acceptd

Lottery process if more applicants than spaces available, however the lottery includes all requests (employee, locally employed, out-of-district)

Trustee Butler and Trustee Krumholz suggested that “random” (lottery) in ed code could be after a priority. Trustee Butler extensively researched districts in our county in terms of acceptance of employees’ children. Found many other districts to be more conducive.

OEA President pointed out that Pulte Homes has stated in its public documentation that priority will be given to those working in Orinda for a minimum of one year for consideration of below market rate homes. Why may that agency publicize its priority w/o concern for legal action?

An OIS teacher requested priority for teachers.

An OIS employee: out of district students who attend Miramonte are notified of acceptance in April and May and questioned why OUSD waits until the end of August to notify applicants of admittance or denial

Local citizen: asked about fiscal impact

Former student spoke in favor of priority

OIS teacher reminded the district that positive news reports about OUSD are preferable. Private schools recruit teachers at 5-year increments. Employees’ children attending school in OUSD is a strong incentive to remain.

Trustee Severson stated that the OUSD policy was legally challenged and that legal counsel for the district has recommended against any change in policy.

Trustee Butler pointed out that the legal challenge was about the Allen Act, not interdistrict transfer of employees’ children. Trustee Krumholz stated that because the interdistrict transfer has not previously been challenged he is less concerned about that possibility. He sees the opportunity as an amenity that will attract teachers to the district. Trustee Rossiter spoke in favor of the AcalanesUHSD policy where employees’ children are given priority. Trustee Severson, as Board President requested that more legal detail be provided and recognized the Board consensus is for employee support if possible. Dr Jaconette spoke to his concern about possible liability for the district. He also noted that the CCCOE often finds in favor of the child during a transfer appeal.

Common Core Funds designations:

Instructional materials increased from 9% to 19% ($94,345.00)

Staff Development increased from 32% to 49% ($245,860.00)

Technnology reduced from 59% to 32%  ($159,750.00)

CCF is a one-time funds and the allocation is based on enrollment. The aportionment is for two years and must be spent by July 2015.

Technology $ reduction will be supported via Pulte facities funds.

Bandwidth will be a general fund expense; $34,000.00 per year

The OEA Prsident and VP thanked Mrs. Marshall for revisiting and adjusting the percentages for expenditures and emphasized the significant efforts of the district teachers who are creating their own CC transition materials.

Board approved 5-0

 Mr Silvas recommended that the district bandwidth be increased from 100MB to 200MB for the district office at the cost of $22,228.56. Bandwidth is equally available to all school sites, where bandwidth is currently 50MB and will increase to 100MB. Board approved 5-0

Energy planning for the district: use Prop 39, solar and energy efficiency funds

Newcomb, Anderson and McCormick Company

Energy planning, energy efficiency, and solar = $69,970.00

W/o solar = $41,775.00.  Approved total contract 5-0

RGM  Assoc. Project Management

Mr. Silvas recommended RGM, a company that has provided past positive service to OUSD. The purpose is to use the company to manage the Facilities Priority List.

$523,500.  –  close to $700,000. Projects are expected to take more than one year to complete.  Trustees expressed concern about cost although consider $130.00 per hour for a project manager as a fair rate. Trustee Krumholz pointed out that the amertization equals a full time employee for two years. Approved rate structure 5-0.

Will later approve contract.

Corovan Moving

This company moved the DO to the current location. Mr. Silvas is recommending the same company to move to new district office location: $8,060.38

Approved 4-1 abstention

Mr. Inglesby recommended Goldbook, an online tool that enables a teacher to view student profiles for IEP students and create a differentiated goal with tools and resources to achieve that goal. Goals are measured 3-4 times per year. The program correlates to elec. IEP docs. Goldbook was piloted this fall. Mr. Inglesby reported a positive response from teachers who used the program. Common Core funds can support the adoption purchase.

Approved 5-0

Portables (discussion item): the Board reuested information about costs to buy out the current 14 leased portables and also the cost to replace 31 portables throughout district.

American Modular Gen 7 portables are highly sustainable, energy efficient and meet CHPS and LEED standards for Green Schools. Installed on a 5” slab foundation with steel frame and meet CA seismic regulation. 14 leased = $4,081,200.00.

17 owned = $6,156,000. Solar may be an option on rooftops. There is interest by the Board to improve the portables’ quality in the district. Cost is a significant factor. Discussion to be continued.

Board reports:

Trustee Butler: Advocacy Day meetings

Trustee Severson: bus report

Superintendent Report: complimented business office re: audit, 1/22 state budet meeting at CCCOE

Trustee Butler suggested reviewing school climate/discipline at school sites and requested information about principal’s evaluations

Respectfully submitted by,

Colleen Sullivan

OEA VP

California Now Ranks 49th in the Nation in K-12 Spending...

• Adjusted per-pupil expenditures of $8,482, well below the national average of $11,824
• Last year, California ranked 47th
• Source: EdSource, click here

What is the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)?

Below are links to a short video in English and Spanish explaining what the Local Control Funding Formula does, and why the formula works they way it does.

Local Control Funding Formula English

La Fórmula de Financiamiento de C

    

How Education is Funded in California

• California schools today receive the large majority of their funding from the State, primarily from income and sales tax revenues, but also from local property taxes that are collected at the local level but distributed by the State.  
• By their nature, income and sales taxes are more volatile revenue sources than property taxes.  California school districts therefore face dramatic cyclical funding variations as the economy rises and falls.
• Further, California's Governor and State Legislature, whose vote on the State Budget Act determines how State funds may be spent, have enormous control over the ability of local school districts to utilize funding to meet the specific needs of their students.
• It is estimated that approximately 60% of all school district funds in California are general purpose in nature; the remaining 40% are restricted to specific purposes, such as the needs of special education students, low income students, limited English-proficient students, and specific grade levels.  This greatly constrains local boards of education in their spending decisions.
• They are further constrained in their ability to raise taxes independently of the State.  Bond issues, usually limited to building programs, require a 55% vote for passage; parcel tax measures require a 2/3 vote.

History of California Education Laws and Court Orders

Serrano v Priest (1971):
The California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest ruled education a fundamental constitutional right.  The ruling challenged the traditional method of locally funding schools which resulted in wealth-based disparities throughout school districts in the state.

SB 90 (1972):
In response to the Serrano case, in 1972, the state legislature established the current revenue limit scheme composed of state aid and local property taxes to bring about statewide parity among districts. It established the base finance amount for all districts to ensure districts were within $100 per pupil of each other. It was the first time since 1910 that the state reversed course on having a limited role in education financing.

Serrano v Priest II (1976):
The California Supreme Court found that the state’s education finance scheme (based on local revenue generated by the value of property) violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution. It resulted in the Supreme Court requiring the state to reduce funding disparities among districts within $100 per pupil.

Proposition 13 (1978):
Proposition 13 limited local property taxes to 2% annual increases based on value of property and capped taxes on property purchased after 1979 to 1% of the purchased value. An important feature in this initiative was that it required all parcel tax measures to pass with a 2/3rds vote.

For more information click here.

AB 8 (1979):
Although Proposition 13 was a boon to property owners, the loss of revenue to localities and districts was staggering. It resulted in a 50% loss in revenue to both cities and school districts. The state passed legislation that shifted the majority of tax dollars to local governments and created a new state fund to support schools that had lost property tax dollars.

For more information click here.

Authorization of the State Lottery (1984):
Voters approved the establishment of the California Lottery. It provided a guarantee of 34% of all collected funds to be distributed to k-12 schools, colleges and universities throughout the state. These funds can only be used for instructional purposes and are restricted from being used for non-instructional purposes, i.e. real estate acquisition, facilities maintenance, administration, etc.

For more information click here.

Proposition 98 (1988):
Voters approved Proposition 98 in November 1988 and amended in June of 1990 by Proposition 111. It provides a minimum funding guarantee (~40% of the state’s General Fund expenditures) for school districts, community college districts, and other state agencies that provide direct elementary and secondary instructional programs for kindergarten through grade 14 (K–14). The guarantee varies from year to year and changes throughout the year from the Governor’s initial proposal to when the budget is finalized based on April/May tax receipts.

For more information click here.

Dec 9th Board Mtg Highlights from OEA: Staff Children in OUSD item discussed.

December 9, 2013 Board Meeting Highlights

Video of first 90 minutes including election of officers and staff children in OUSD Schools

Dani Jurichko and Sandy Borneville recognized as Employees of the month.

Consent calendar adopted (exception item D)

Trustee Moran nominated Trustee Severson as president of the Board (selected).

Trustee Moran and Trustee Krompholz were nominated as vice president of the Board. Trustee Butler pointed out that Trustee Moran has twice served as a previous officer and the Board guidelines indicate that an experienced trustee who has not served as an officer shall have the opportunity. Trustee Moran, Rossiter and Severson voted to elect Trustee Moran as VP.

Trustees determined which Trustees would serve on which committees.

Interdistrict transfers for the employees’children:

Trustee Butler supported the attendanc of employees’ children in our schools and had engaged in extensive research of the Education Code and policies in districts throughout Contra Costa. The following school districts accommodate the children of employees attending their schools: Martinez, Mt. Diablo, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Moraga, Acalanes, and Lafayette.

Mr. Moran expressed concern that if a district favors one group it automatically excludes others. He requested more information. Trustee Rossitor asked for historical information. Mrs. Farrell reported that the majority of teachers’ children who apply are accepted. Since ’09-10 there have been 5 denials and 1 retraction.

Trustee Severson asked if requests are site specific. That stipulation varies.

Teachers, Emily Cashen, Barbara Gunderson, Sue Boudreau, Charles Shannon, Erin Miller, Adam Miller, and Paula Lopez spoke in support of interdistrict transfers.

Ms Gunderson pointed out that at one time state law supported the interdistrict transfers. When that door closed, the Education Code supported interdistrict transfers. OUSD once did so as well and the Board was asked to reinstate.

A Glorietta parent encouraged the board to admit the children of teachers and provided a letter to the Board.

Teacher, Debra Jokish’s son was denied attendance for her child although told upon hiring that her child would be able to attend.  She spoke in support of those teachers’ children who have/will come after her son. 

William Hudson, citizen, spoke in support and is “amazed” that the teachers’ children are not readily admitted.

Trustee Krompholz spoke in support of admitting the children of district employees.

Trustee Rossitor referred to the issue as a “process concern” and expressed unease about legal challenge.

Trustee Severson referred to legal counsel.

Matt Moran would like to see multiple policies and expressed concern about families who buy/rent within the district in late August. In closing he stated that he would like to support the employees’ children.

CDE: District Transfers Laws regarding intradistrict and interdistrict transfers

First Period Interim Report ‘13-14: the Board approved a positive financial status extending through 2015-16.

Furniture for new district office: Board aproved budget of close to $69,000. Mr. Silvas reported that some pieces from previous office will be recycled. The furniture will be purchased from the Sam Clar company.

Mr. Hudson from Friends of Wagner Ranch inquired as to the possibility of a restroom facility in the Nature Area and a more permanent roof than currently exists in the cooking area. FWR underwrites staffing for programs in Nature Area. Inquired about a defined budget, matching funds, materials for possible projects there.

Trustee Rossitor expressed interest in replacing the 11 portables in the district.  The Facilities Task Force budget does not iclude replacing portables b/c of feedback from task force meetings. Other items received the earmarked funds.

Lengthy discussion about items on Task Force Facilities list.

Columbia Training for K-5:

Use of funding from Common Core budget to support spring training approved.

 Common Core Expenditure Plan

Mrs. Marshall identified that the preliminary budget had been composed through OTEC, the Coordination Council, the Curriculum Committee and a teachers’ survey.

$200.96 per student based on 2012-13 enrollment

$499,995.00 to be spent by 7/15/13

Develop and adopt an expenditure plan, explain at public meeting, adopt at future meeting

Funds may be used in three categories: instructional materials, professional development. integration through tech-based instruction including infrastructure, band-width, connectivity, support, software

Preliminary Funds distribution:

39% professional development

52% technology

9% instructional materials

2013-15: $44,234.00  ELA, math, both subjects integrated into Common Core, report card development, software programs

$196,010.00: Columbia , “other” training, teachers collaborating together”

 ELA, math, science, tech training

$259,751.00: technology; focused on infrastructure, equipment, installations software

Charles Shannon spoke to increased time devoted by teachers to developing Common Core units without compensation and the lack of available materials for transition/Common Core. Charles encouraged looking at other funding sources for technology due to high percentage earmarked for that area.

10:00 pm: consensus to continue Board Meeting. Trustee Moran departed.

Communication: Trustees attended CSBA Conference

Dr Jaconette thanked Trustees for attending and thanked Trustee Rossitor for her tenure as previous Board President.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by,

Colleen Sullivan

OEA VP

Employee Children in Orinda's Schools?

Here's the e mail record of progress on this important issue to OEA members:

On Nov 4, 2013, at 8:14 PM, "Charles Shannon, OEA president <cshannon65@gmail.com<mailto:cshannon65@gmail.com>> wrote:

OEA Members,

One of our Board members spoke with Julie Rossiter on Friday regarding the District Policy on employee's children in district schools.  Since there are 2 Board Policy numbers (5111 and 5117), and AR's that apply to this, the two of them agreed to set up a meeting with Joe the week of Nov. 11th to discuss this issue further in hopes of putting it on the December Board Meeting Agenda.

Attached is the California School Board Association Sample Policy.

The most important issue is what does Ed Code say? See Ed Code 48204, which is referenced in CSBA Sample Policy for BP 5117

CSBA Sample Policy BP 5117 (from 4th attachment):

...."Note: In addition, Education Code 48204<http://gamutonline.net/displayPolicy/137760/5> authorizes a student in a participating district to be deemed a "resident" in order to attend a school in the district where his/her parent/guardian is employed (Allen bill transfer); see AR 5111.12<http://gamutonline.net/displayPolicy/259628/5> - Residency Based on Parent/Guardian Employment."

For Ed Code 48204, see paragraph pasted below from the link that follows:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=4.&title=2.&part=27.&chapter=2.&article=1.

  48204.

(a) Notwithstanding Section 48200, a pupil complies with the residency requirements for school attendance in a school district, if he or she is any of the following:


(b) A school district may deem a pupil to have complied with the residency requirements for school attendance in the district if at least one parent or the legal guardian of the pupil is physically employed within the boundaries of that district for a minimum of 10 hours during the school week.

Regards,

Charles


On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Charles Shannon <cshannon65@gmail.com<mailto:cshannon65@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear OEA Members,

OEA Leadership has been working through this important issue with the District since the start of the school year.  We are gathering information, consulting with CTA Staff, reaching out to the OUSD Board of Trustees, and requesting legal opinions/information.  We will provide updates as information becomes available.

Thank you for your continued interest and thoughtful replies,

Charles


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Charles Shannon <cshannon65@gmail.com<mailto:cshannon65@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear OEA Members,

At our last Board Meeting, Heather Raser stood before the OUSD Board to share her thoughts, feelings, and opinions about inter-district transfers (IDT) as it relates to employees children and her own personal experiences.  Please read her speech that follows.

Thank you,

Charles Shannon,
OEA President

Heather’s Message to the Board of Trustees

My name is Heather Raser and I am currently a school counselor for the Orinda Union School District.  I stand before you today to urge you to reconsider how the district handles inter-district transfers as it relates to your employees.

12 years ago, I was thrilled to take a job at OUSD; a top rated school district.  When the district hired me, I was led to believe that someday if I decided to have children, they would be able to attend OUSD because of my employment status through the Allen Bill.  I made the choice to live outside of Orinda in a more affordable area, while knowing someday my kids would be able to get an excellent education.  I became fully immersed in my job and as a member of this community.

In 2010, I experienced a considerable amount of stress around my son’s pending inter-district transfer for Kindergarten. I kept hearing the district was changing their policy on IDT’s and ultimately the message that I heard, it didn’t matter anymore if you were an employee - it was all about the numbers.  My son’s IDT was eventually approved the day before school started.  I was relieved. Sadly, a few years prior, it didn’t work out for several teachers’ families. They were told that there was not enough space for their Kindergartners to attend OUSD.  To my knowledge this was the first time historically that any employee was denied an IDT for their child.  It seemed so unfair and so many of us were disappointed in the district’s lack of support.

This school year, I applied for another IDT’s for my daughter to enroll in OUSD.  The district denied my request due to lack of space.  I was devastated.  I honestly thought the district would take my request seriously, especially considering that they had previously accepted my son.  In all my years working for OUSD, I have never felt more unappreciated and unaccepted, and after all is said and done, I felt like I was just a number.  No longer did I feel valued, no longer did I feel proud.  I actually felt embarrassed to work for OUSD.  As an educator and parent in this community, I have built a strong support network of people.   So perhaps you can imagine what it was like for me when people asked me about how my family was doing and more specifically, how my kids were enjoying school.  I was honest, I told people what was happening.  Every single staff member, community member, and friend that I talked to was appalled that the district was treating their employees this way.  As you all know, I appealed the districts decision, and eventually my daughter was enrolled. No other employee should ever have to experience what I have experienced.  There is no rational that you could possibly give me to make this policy acceptable.  This is clearly unsupportive of your employees and their families.

There is a lot of research out there that shows significant connections between happy employees and quality job performance.  More and more organizations are utilizing forward thinking strategies to attract new and maintain current employees.  For example, organizations are creating on-site childcare for their employees because it’s evident that employees are happier when their children are safe and close by, therefore allowing them to be more productive in their jobs.  As we all know, being an educator is a highly rewarding profession, however, it is also a very underpaid profession.  There are very few “perks” to working in education.  I see before us one very simple “perk” that our district can easily maintain.  That “perk” is to simply allow your employees children to attend OUSD schools.  This has been a common practice that has been widely used across the country for decades.  More specifically, the Acalanes Unified School District, our feeder high school district actively allows their employees children to attend AUSD.  I urge you, please re-look at your policy.  We work hard and our children should be allowed to benefit from our hard work.  Please value us as employees and do right by us.  Don’t our own children deserve the best too?

In closing, as a school counselor and a member of this community, I see it as my responsibility to guide, educate, and support everyone in my life.  Our own OUSD mission specifically uses words such as community, support, develop, and character.  We know that we have built a strong academic experience here at OUSD, but we also have a responsibility to build and model appropriate behavior.  Your staff members deserve a clear policy that supports our children.

Thank you for listening and thank you for your time.

Heather Raser