afternoon. welcome to our special budget and finance committee meeting of monday december 5, 2016. i'm katy and chair thg team and to my left is normal yee. our clerk is linda wong and sfgovtv like to thank leo [inaudible] derek. >> please silence cell phones and electronic devices. complete speaker cards and document to be included as part of the file should be submit today the clerk. >> thank you. today we have item 1, so if you can please call item 1. >> orbd nons approving and authorizing the exectv director of port of san francisco to execute project agreement with army corp of engineering to allow dredging of central basin by pier 70, not to exceed $2.2 million for project cost and port providing a 10 percent matching share nod to exceed $900,000 of the central basin payable over the 30 years for matching fair from the port not to exceed $3.1 million. >> thank you we have the port staff here to explain why we are here on a monday for the item. >> yes. good afternoon supervisors. [inaudible] project sponsor [inaudible] and the new deputy commander of the san francisco district of army corp of engineer major kevinmic cormic. before i go further like to express on behalf of director forbes heartfelt gratitude for being here today rchlt being able to call the special committee hearing for us and also to the legislative analyst for turning out the report so quickly. thank you so much. why are we here? the pier 70 to get ortorianted the ports southern water front. the longest continually operating shipyard on the west coast and under lease as one entity or another for by same operator for all most 30 years b e-a systems and has 2050 scaled craftsman. 1885 the first ship their turned out. produce adlot of vessels for world war i and 2. the central basin is the driveway to the ship yard. when it gets to shallow the facilities can't handle ships of increasing sizes. optimal depth is 32 feet. now we are considerable shallower than that. the shipyard is having to turn away business making it less competitive and dredging it for the shipyard itself or the port is not a economical undertaking. in 2009 recognizing the number of federal vessels coming in and serviced i wrote the letter back in 20069 to army corp of engineers asking for assistance under the small navigation program, the continuing authority program 107. they took a look at that and numbers looked good to go into full blown study so did that in 2011. there were years where congress iced these program but got back on track last year. the army corp is extremely thorough and has a very rigorous process. we came out on the other end with a project that they liked and daerchled it in the best interest of national infrastructure. $8.9 million which deepens the central basin back down to the optimal depth of 32 feet and importantly after-that take on the maintenance dredging fold over what is a problematic situation for the port and shipyard tenet for year jz years as long as they have been there, fold it into had normal federal operation and maintenance dredging program so it comes off or books. the cost benefit ratio looks good. every dollar the federal government spends they spend to recope all most 3. that is mostly from ships not diverting to the next closest shipyard which is not that close. the steaming costs are expensive. this is what we are looking at, this is the dredge footprint itself. what you are look ing at in the lower right are the two dry docks are big vessels that submerge like a bathtub, it sinks itself and ship floats up and picks pback out of the water. the dry dock is one of the la largest on the west coast so takes the largest cruise ships. why we are here today is we have been through this process since 2009, we come up with the alternative that the army corp want tooz build. we are on board with that and need to execute the agreement that locks that in place. we have matching requirements kripeed in the ordinance both for the initial dredge and the maintenance. we also have responsibilities to make sure that the facilities themselves that service the shiperize properly maintained, that is a part of the lease we have the shipyard operator and handling of hazmat staff. i mention it because it's a liability technically but that side is dredged before. it is thury tested and there is nothing there. as i said, it will be deep ened to the optimal depth that is the new authorized depth and the army corp will maintain it going forward until something changes so looking at 30 years as one window for some of the financing rules, about $20 million. we have the initial dredge and comes out to annually a little over $400 thousand a year of benefit to the port so that is essentially taking off the books in recognition of the benefit to the the federal government. what would the ordinance do? the reason we are here today with a ordinance and not going through a more standard process is that the administration strange january 20 will lead to a new head oaf the arnly corp of engineer and that individual is require today execute the agreement so we are here with a ordinance waving certain contract provisions mostly because it is the army corp, it is federal boiler plate they use all over the country and we are pret a comfortable with our continues reviewed it and feel pretty comfortable with what we come out with. that includes do not exceed amount and again january 20 is the key date there. it does wave parts the environment code, but just to be clear it does-going through all the same processes we go through for other dredging. the dmoo regulatory framework is in place. the army corp is doing the neppa review and exempt under ceqa so this is for port is and dredging and pretty familiar with this territory. that's it. just want to say thank you again for being here today and special hearing and happy and other port staff are happy to answer questions. >> thank you for your prezen sentation. spl visor yee? >> curious, on a aneral basis how much do you have to dredge? how many feet? >> that's a good question. it varies from location to location depending on the shouling and shilting. in this particular spot it is between a half foot to a foot every year and it is not-that's about average. >> and then i guess when was the last time it was dredged? >> the shipyard tenet did a emergency dredge 2014. they took a couple feet affthe top in the high spots to preserve the ability of the shipyard to take larger vessels but it hasn't had a full dredge to 32 feet for at least 10 years and that was also not done with city funds. the shipyard operator was able to get feema funding for another-they had discretion where to use it and that is where they chose to use it. it is a key part why the army corp is able to take it on is absent the federal funding it may not happen and doesn't work for either party so that facility wasn't be available for flal vesselsism . >> i thought i read the dredging is to occur every 4 year snz >> that's right. >> so it's not yearly? >> it's not yearly. that is a estimate. it is depending on the rate of shouling it is more economical doing it every year. about every 2 feet they start get toog a point where it could restrict the business they can take, so they review that among other federal channels that require dredging maintenance and assume tg is dredging at the predicted rate about every 4 years: >> you medicationed mentioned there hasn't been a full dredging in the last 10 years, how does this partnership you are embarking upon, how will it impact what you are able to do that at area? will you be able to service more ships? what is the impact been due to lack of dredging and what will it be moving forward? >> well, our shipyard operator hah to turn away several large ships. i could-i'm sure [inaudible] could name them off. they have to turn away seberal large ships because they don't have the depth. there are others where they are boarderline and it is a up to the discretion of the captains of the vessels whether they take them or not. they only try to do them when there is a very very high tide and have to be lighter and make accommodations. this project moving forward with this arrange mentd when it is back to the optimal depth the san francisco shipyard will not have to turn away any vessels due to navigational restrictions. >> do you have a senss of the numbers at all? >> the numbers of ships turning away per year? >> that you have been because of the current conditions? >> for example in year 2016- >> would you like to come to the mic. >> [inaudible] maritime marketing and port of san francisco. year 2016 there were at least four i'm aware of that turned away and it isn't only the big ships because if you remember the plot layout, we got two dry docks and we got a smaller dry-dock which is west and that is very orange and red in the photo's so we had to turn away the submarine pump anieto which is home port in san francisco which would have been a lucrative and long term job but couldn't get it into that dock because we didn't have 14 feet of clearance in that lane that comes in at the second dock. so, this whole dredging scheme is to not only deepen it but also to widen the approach. the short answer to your question is at least 4 ships i'm aware of in 2016 turned away. >> what is the next closest place the ship can go and get service if they are turned away from here? >> it depends on the size of the vessel but the other big one is portland, right? portland is the next big dry-dock. one of the facts the army corp takez into consideration is how much father they have to steam and fuel cost. a consideration they added if there was a emergency on the bay a ship leaking oil that was right at the margins of the depth for get nothing to the dry dock for repairs. that was another piece of the puzzle. >> it sounds like all your environmental clearances are solid and there is nothing to worry about in the future here? alright. >> i agree with that. >> alright. those are all the questions i think we have so at this time we'll go to the budget analyst report. >> deborah newman from budget and legislative analyst office. the required 25 percent match for the initial dredging of 2 $2,242,750 is appropriated and going forward over the nucs 30 years the not to exceed $897,100 of port matching funds of the 10 percent required match will be also included in future port budget subject to appropriation approval by this board of supervisors. the source of funds are port harbor funds which they use for dredging and recommend approval oaf this orbd nns. >> thank you very much. okay, seeing no other questions at the time we open up item 1 to pub lb lic comment. any members of the public wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed and if we can get a motion on the e item >> i believe there is a amendment that the port would like to submit to the committee for approval. >> is that right? this right here. >> yes. >> i'll differ to the city attorney on the nature of that amendment. because the amended ord nnss, the language requested by john gibbener on--it requires us within 30 dayoffs the finalization of the agreement to put it on file with the clerks office. recommended by the boards attorney. >> city attorneys office? >> i'm informed section 7 should be a added to this proposed ordinance which we added by double underline. if you like me to read if t to the record i can. >> sure >> it states section 7 entitled filing of executed agreement within 30 dayoffs agreement being fully executed by all parties, the port shall provide a copy the contract to the clerk of the board for inclusion into the file. and i'm sorry for the record, i'm tim or timothy you shidy deputy city attorney assign today the port. >> thank you very much mr.io sheeda. supervisor yee would you like to make a motion to amend? >> i yes. >> we'll do that without objection. >> for this legislation to full board with positive recommendation as amended. >> and a committee report. >> as a committee report. >> we do that without objection. >> any other items before us today. >> would you like to excuse supervisor farrell. >> yes, motion to excuse supervisor farrell. >> i'll make the motion. >> without objection supervisor farrell is excused. madam clerk any other business before us today? >> there is no other business. >> alright, thank you, we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned] light for o streets illuminating our ideas and values starting in 2016 the san francisco public utilities commission is xhoefl that light with new led with the did i audits for better light for streets and pedestrian and they're even better for this vitally lasting longer and consuming up to 50 percent less energy upgrading takes thirty minutes remove the old street light and repeat 18 thousand 5 hundred times while our street lights will be improving the clean energy will remain the same every san francisco street light is powder by 100 percent godfathers hetch hetchy power in one simple word serious as day turns california collaborative for educational excellence board meeting to order. let's start with the pledge. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. i recognized that a quorum is present for the collaborative. i want to start by saying that we will begin our session in closed session. we will be adjourning the closed session pursuant to government code section 11126 subdivision a in order to consider approval of a public employee position. the position that will be considered in closed session is senior manager training. so at this time i would like to ask everyone who is not a member of the collaborative if they can please excuse themselves. i think it the board for your hosting us. just our general announcements, any letters from the public on matters before the collaborative aggregated ahead of the meeting and shared with us. i don't believe we got any correspondence. but we always have that in mind and folks that do want to communicate with us, we appreciate you providing the materials prior to the meeting. for members of the audience, there are sign up cards available outside the boardroom. any member of the public who wishes to speak should complete a sign up card and place it next to the dais. there is a 2-minute time limit for speakers. we'll keep track to make sure you are not going over 2 minutes. you are welcome to address the board on non-agenda item. >> if you wish to address the board on the collaborative, please give us 15 copies with the item on it so we can look at the material when the item is available. all of you who are interested in speaking please introduce yourself and identify who you represent and why you are speaking. also board members, we have a different set up, it's the same thing, push the red button and when the light comes on you can speak. moving to item 1. the report of action taken in closed session. we discussed the approval of a public employee position, but no action was taken during closed session. an action on that item will occur under item 11. moving to item 2. approval of the minutes. has the board had a chance to look at the minutes from the last meeting, and if so, i would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> it's been moved and seconded. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? >> [inaudible] >> okay, thank you, michael. i appreciate that. we are so glad to have you back. >> item 3. election of ccee board leadership. i'm going to turn it over to our general counsel james baca. >> we are electing officers. i'm going to ask that you defer this matter to the executive director to accept nominations for the election of the president, and then after the president is elected. the president can then accept nominations for the position of the vice-president. >> it's the chair, right? >> correct. i'm sorry. the chair and the vice-chair. [ laughter ] >> the floor is open for nominations for chair of the ccee board. >> i would like to make a motion for the nomination. [inaudible] >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. >> can i ask that be revised so she serves through the 2016-year and also the 2017-calendar year? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i will make a motion. >> it's been moved and any further nominations? it's been moved and seconded. >> you are doing a great job. we don't want to change it. keep it up. it's great work. >> any public comment? all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? any abstentions? thank you. congratulations. >> thank you. i really appreciate the honor. i appreciate all the support of my fellow colleagues. so, therefore i am opening nominations for the vice-chair to serve through 2017. >> i will make a motion for michael watkins to serve as chair for 2017. >> okay, we have a motion and second. are there any further nominations? okay, all those in favor of michael watkins serving as vice-chair, all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you. michael. >> we are moving to item 4. limited delegation of initial hiring and contracting authority. you are going to help us with that as well. >> you have received i think in your materials a document that delegates authority to both the fiscal agent and the executive director with respect to the contracts that need to occur during the 2-month period between meetings. one of the difficulties of the structure of the ccee is that you only meet every other month. as somebody has mentioned it is a dynamic organization and there are things that need to be done during that period. so carl asked if it would be possible to delegate some authority to carl to enter into contracts that would then be ratified by the board on an every other month basis. so any contract that we enter into will be ratified by the board and the contract that we enter will specifically indicate that it is subject to the ratification of the board. so, consequently if we enter into a contract and the board chooses not to ratify it, the person or organization who we contract with, recognizes that the contract will then be void. we've discussed what the limitations, the dollar limitations. i did recommend to carl that there be a dollar limitation. i think that protects both the staff and the board as well. we thought $100,000 would be a good limitation. there will be contracts that will be up to that. most of them will be far less than that. so, the resolution is before you, madam president. i don't know if you want to read the resolution in whole. what it does is it delegates both to the executive director the authority to enter into contract up to $100,000 and to the fiscal agent that they are able to execute what the executive director is requesting since it is the fiscal agent that has the authority to contract under the statute. >> carl, do you want to add anything? >> >>carl cohn, ed.d: no, i think that adequately covers it. >> any comments under item 4? >> i would move approval. it helps us work, helps us function and ultimate check with the board as tim just outlined. >> okay, a motion and second. any comments or questions on the motion. my only question is $100,000 enough? it seems low actually to me for the kind fd of work that we are doing. so i will just ask you that question? >> yes, i think it's going to be okay for now as we get into this. but if there is any change in that, obviously we'll come back. >> okay, we have a motion before us. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? that passes unanimously. okay. we are moving onto item 5. this is the ccee organizational development proposal. you have a copy of it both were posted yesterday and we have a hard copy if you would like. before we start, i would like to make a couple of opening comments. first to express my appreciation to carl and socorro and sugi in response to a conversation we had in september and we are just sort of growing by leaps and bounds and taking on additional responsibilities. it seemed like we needed to take a minute to step back and reflect on what is it we are going to be when we grow up and what we expect this to look like. this is meant to be an initial starting conversation. so it was posted as for discussion and action. i don't expect that we'll take any action at all today on this. i think that the staff and carl especially would really benefit from our feedback about do we think they are on the right track, are these the kinds of things we should be looking at and maybe other things they hadn't thought of that we are interested in and the budget, and what will this look out when it's built out. i will get to other comments. i wanted to frame it because it was a lot of work and it came in a little bit late. i think in the future we would like to have more time so people can take a look at it. but just to have the understanding what the conversation is about and what the impetus was. carl, you want to start? >>carl cohn, ed.d: sure. this is an initial draft. so we are very interested in feedback from this board and from others. yesterday, i was in sacramento meeting with a whole host of people including department of finance, legislation, leadership and the administration. the overall conversation was, give us your vision for the future. don't necessarily be constrained by the fact that there isn't as much money this year as there have been in years past, but layout a vision for how this philosophy that really compliments this dynamic huge shift to local control. what should this look like, and down the road, there may be people coming back and saying it's too much and these should be paired down, but don't alter the initial vision for what this could look like. so that's the spirit in which we are presenting this proposal. we know there are other realities out there, fiscal constraints, that sort of thing. but if we are really going to deliver on our charge to get the right kind of help and assistance to districts, charters and county offices, this is what we would like to do. with that, socorro and suji? >> great, thank you and thank you for the set up in terms of this being a discussion item and really there are some key questions and points where we would love to hear your thinking. as you heard this, we understand the interesting tension where we are in terms of many things being determined as we speak. the accountability is still being determined at the board level and we understand there are lots of entities that play roles in this as well as the federal discussions about what to do and how they will evolve with some of the changes over all. it's the tension of being as prepared as we can in these changing times knowing that things are evolving as we speak. so really, thank you, sue, for the preparation and just having these initial discussions so we can think about what these will look like over time. we know what ed code says what the ta should look like, the technical assistant. we also know there are several entities that play roles in technical assistance in addition to us. so really having these conversations about how we all contribute to the local education agencies and their work and their progress. and again the state board education memo from august began to really outline what the different types of technical assistance would look like and really kind of where ccee and others would begin to fit in. again, this is of course kind of policy direction, so operationalizing that, and what that means when we enter those are all conversations forthcoming. i think the key question and i will pause here for discussion is we need to really think about how do we all layer together and gather together and service the district county offices, the charters in ways that make sense to them in terms of their improvement and the services they receive. this really is just an open conversation about how do we begin to define these differences, what do they look like, how do the conversations happen. of where do they happen, who is the lead in some of these conversations. i think a lot comes for our discussion comes from the state board and their vision of technical assistance and how do we move from that to our work on the ground. we would like to hear your thoughts. >> comments? >> just to reflect, again, looking out and appreciating the work that's gone into visioning, building the vision, defining the layers, i also call it a team. obviously it's a collaboration. how do we best help the districts that are identifying and struggling and identifying a need and how do we want to help with the collaborative. i think working on and shaping that vision sort of a collective team vision is really important. you know, what do we want to be down the road, where do we want to be down the road, and how best to get there. so, i agree this is a good opener to start. as sue just mentioned but then working over the next few months to circulate it and bring in other parties, the ccee of course and looking how to shape that common vision and where the gaps are and how you interface like you said the layer that help from different agencies and different perspectives. we even talked about the need to look at a chart and who is reporting to who and how to most effectively implement the projects we already have in hand and how to do that with an additional 20-21 staff members. >> michael? >> these are possible positions? >> these are job descriptions available? no. i have been very busy until today. what would be the process for board feedback? carl? >> >>carl cohn, ed.d: we see this coming back to the board over the next couple of meetings following this one for lots of discussion, if the board wanted a special workshop on this, we could also certainly do that. >> thank you. >> i see a critical part of this agenda to bring all the parties together. i think something to think about as i read through this. what will bring collaboration to a breaking point is when their assumption is there is going to be no conflict involved. there is going to be conflict and the defining moment is who has the decision for what because the question is going to be county office gives technical assistance in one and then they get it in another direction. the county office approves the plan. this brings them together in the hopes of eliminating some of the stumbling blocks for the lca and the l caps. i like the direction it's going and i think you have the potential for further conversations and get down to the nitty gritty about who is going to make the decision when they are asking ccee for advice and yet the county office may not be involved in that conversation. so avoiding that, this is a good step. >> yeah, and i see, again this is based on the statute. county office, when you talk about what is the key difference, they are going to be referring people to -- ccee and ultimately ccee goes back for the approval. i think that relationship is important. i think having some of these people in the field is going to deal directly and be different. i realize there are staff in the field, but as we are doing the nitty gritty work of providing technical assistance, there is only so much you can do remotely. but having people here engaged and providing context to i think is critical to the success overall. i like the direction we are headed in as well. >> carl has a good notion of having a workshop in the future and being preceded by a great workgroup here with ccee and the county and maybe some other entity should be worked in so some work at a staff level vetting the different ideas and looking at where pit falls might be and avoiding walls. it would be a workshop where we can get involved and getting feedback and what the party thinks is best to dedicate more dollars and more staff. >> to answer your question or try to, to me a great starting place and tim was going there is the statute. there are some very specific responsibilities that are given to the superintendent of public instruction that are given to the collaborative, that are given to the county superintendent. at least starting with that as a nucleus and working your way out i think would be very helpful. the one sort of practical suggestion i have in regard to kind of pull people in and helping them understand and get to collaboration. i appreciate your conflict. if we don't have conflict, then we are never going to get there. we need some kind of advisory group to include county superintendent, some number of district superintendents and with the department of education and collaborative to work with these roles. it maybe where there is conflicting advice and how do we work together on that. an advisory committee on that serves two purpose and collaborates and helps to understand what this different roles are and also helps to lower the anxiety level which exist a little bit among every organization. whenever you have an organization people have expected roles and they say, wait a minute, that's my job and you are infringing on my job. i feel that conversation happening out on the field and i would like to figure out a mechanism to alleviate that anxiety and work on that. that's just one suggestion. i always go back to ficma board. with the sprinkling of folks involved in that work. this is about local capacity building. i really like the way you captured it in this concept paper. so if that's what this is about, we have to get to those local people and help them understand and help them become part of what we are doing. i'm a little worried and we have people up here that have this expectation and see a lot of problems. there is a level of nervousness and this idea that i hope to tamper down and think regular about how to get advice with back and forth feedback would be helpful. >> i have a question and it maybe for carl. the question in terms of your interaction in the field, what are you hearing from them? we have done a number of different engagements, different county offices, the whole set of workshops. what is the feedback in terms of what they would like to see relative to this question and to the structure moving forward in terms of this long-term vision? >> sure. i think the expectation is, is there an entity that's actually going to deliver on continuous improvement and capacity building, and the suspicion has been you are probably going to end up looking like a new compliance shop. so we have mightily tried to disavow people of that notion. so that if there is one entity that isn't constrained by the federal department of ed, by other statutory responsibilities, that we are that entity. our mission is pretty simple and clear. there is a new philosophy that under gurds this shift to local control. so i think what i'm hearing is, are you going to be true to that? or at some point are you going to switch and look like all the other compliance driven agencies? >> i'm aware that the county office already had arranged templates. maybe a different path at ccee. what kind of collaboration have you had. i have been ill for a while and i haven't had a lot of connection but i do realize those have occurred. who gives the advice, is it connected, are we on the same page? who is insuring that we have that? >> we spent quite a bit of time with peter, efrain, sandra who is here today, talk about our training and that sort of thing. and they spent time with us on that. i think josh can probably speak in some detail. >> and he will be in item 6. >> okay. all right. great. >> the other thing, you know, i was looking at ficmat's website and they are also doing lcfs training. they are charging for these. the marketplace is clearly just us. >> we are here to be compliant, we are here to help. i like the idea of the advisory group in figuring out how to recruit, how to launch, you know, what our next steps, should there about school board members also involved just thinking of the composition as well as the function which again could get the word out that we have resources, we have the plan of getting item 5 back shaping it and that we have the ability to help and having an advisory group to get that word out and understand and help a wider understanding of the respective roles each of these agencies have that are in the game including fik matt. >> i think that is possible. i know csb has an entity that works with lcfs that works with board members if i can recall. i think that will help. i think this entity of compliance and capacity building is going to be present a lot. if you look at the statutory responsibilities are and county superintendents especially have a lot of statutory responsibility beyond what's even in the l cap. so you know trying to understand what that relationship is and responsibilities and authorities relative to the caa and helping alongside can be helpful and having a conversation about this is not a compliance mechanism. it's a tectonic shift that we no longer have the state telling you what to do. it's going to take a long time to wrap your head around that and believe it. we have a lot of trust building to do as we have been in this mode for many years. i will let you move on from this. >> i will just share that in the training and one thing that becomes clear as people are waiting for the data to become public is that there is likely to be a so what now. if there are certain colors that show up over time, so this question of technical assistance is becoming more critical and urgent as that's happening. i also think that when we get the data from the rubric, we would have a better opportunity to look at the numbers we predict to be serving because right now that really is our best guesstimate, but we don't have any specific data to inform whether it's 10 people we need or six. there is no way to engage the demand at this point, but we know it's exceeding our capacity right now even with pilot only. so the idea when there is a greater pool, how would we be prepared? >> i do think to your point about so much what happens here depends on what we do at the state board. we are at a point now where we are almost finished with the work. we have the evaluation rubric in place now. we have to still flush out a couple academic and state indicators and the college and career indicator. the so what question will start to come into play, but still a couple years down the road and we are trying to take the light touch. in the first year, if you go back to your slide that shows that fails to improve out by subgroups. it will be intended to be a light touch by the counties to say we know the data, we have identified where your challenges are and now let's make a plan to move forward. so all that is meshing with the accountability provision and relative with what the staffing needs would be, laying those side by side would be helpful. >> following what you just said and what carl has been reporting, it would be helpful to me to have an estimated timeline where we can engage where you think the work load might start to grow and the demand for help is laid out over the next 2 years and of course answering the question as that proposal, what after the 2 years? what after the expenditure of the dollars that are in vision to whether it's 16 positions or 18 or 20. what happens down the road is sort of a time line. that will be great when we look forward to some of that clarity from the state board. generally speaking there are three chunks, if you would, of the draft and as you know we are learning from lea's and pilots as you think about that and still operationally looking at exactly what that is as we model to being an organization and modeling for continuous improvement and that is a key component and one of the areas that the field is asking for. the second thing is this idea and i will let fuji talk about that as well. as we went around in the trainings and these are qualitative examples, but people want to know what is happening and what is going right as it exhaust what they know. so we are going to foster that information in meaningful ways. we have certain things happening in different areas. certainly county office and the department have mechanisms to recognize the work and we have statements of model practice in the rubric, but how do we keep the field abreast of that and in meaningful ways to celebrate the achievement and think about what's possible for them and just backbone support for the organization in making sure we have the hands-on deck to do the level of work we are talking about. i don't know if you want to add? so i think similar to and yet different from both wasc and fik matt and a team. we are learning more from a piloting process so it's not definitive by any means but envisioning that we would be sharing practitioner expertise and again with those principals that dr. cohn was speaking about on this local control and equity. and a little bit more about the innovation, incubation and again an area where we would find develop, explicate best practices in the field so others can hear more, and if they need to learn more on their own, but would have some ideas to help percolate change in meaningful ways. finally simply as an organization ourselves, we want to make sure that we are learning as we go that we are co-learners with people in the field that we work with our colleagues and that we are using the best of things that already happened. knowing in california we have a history of school improvement models and many of us participated in them, but on both sides both as viewers and receivers. so as what worked and what didn't work. those are questions we ask our colleagues in the field as mentioned what type of assistance is that part asking in the field and what they are responding to needs and making a difference as we go forward. >> is there any other discussion? sure. >> not just that one. i like the concept of practitioner teams a lot. i said this a couple times to some of the very first meetings. i'm not sure if carl was here when the staff was here. we used the fik matt analysis a lot. i come back to the wacs team. you look at what it does and before the teams arrive. the site has done work, the wasc team has done the work and they are totally immersed in the school. i see that as really a model for ccee. when we talk about these practitioner teams. yes, we are going to have consultants and different people in the field, but to really provide that assistance. i look at wasc because it scratches the service to give you accreditation, whatever they give. but imagine a ccee team that was completely focused on the l cap and analysis and the data and improvement and what continuous improvement looks like. that's something we should really strive for. >> we have an incredible opportunity with suzy right now joining wasc to talk about these opportunities and what the endeavor will look like in the future and we have this model of practitioners at the local level and driven by the experts and models like that where teams come in at almost invited in an area of expertise identified by a local level. those are really exciting opportunities and to have it all make sense for people because there are incredibly rich opportunities that people have experienced in wasc. it's very exciting. >> we had a meeting with president and george. susan, do you want to speak about that? >> sure. it's exactly the line of thinking we are taking on this. the wasc team is doing really exciting work now and incorporating the changes with new standards and thinking about how to support california districts in school with lcfs and l cap and what to look to provide that prospective support in our district schools in a long term and sustainable level. that has definitely been a kicking off point for discussions and for a kind of approach we want to take as we work with our schools. i think over the next several board meetings and hopefully through a deeper workshop, we would love to share some of the findings we are taking back from our work right now going on with the pilot districts. these are the conversations that we are now engaged in as we think about what does the right team look like, what does the pace of conversation looks like and who needs to be at the table to review these issues of real practice, governance, systemic support and they all look very different and the students are different across the state. in those conversations too, it's exciting to now start to really see tangibly the kind of relationships that we need at the table and we want to see the table between the county office, district folks, are the school boards and really moving away from just theoretically putting on paper and what we actually have in the room and at the table to start building up a statewide system of technical assistance for our districts. >> i just want to add a couple comments. carla and i were reminiscing the other day with the expectant model. it's sort of in between. i share tim's fakes for the practitioner teams with the cceu leads. i have a hope that wasc will come along besides us i'm not that helpful because i think wasc whatever it is is a compliance model and we technically see you every six or so years. we are talking about something different which is like a coaching model where you are teaching the district to fish or help them improve their fishing skills. not that we are going to come in and say, check, check and here is what you did and we'll see you later. i know it's required and for a variety of reasons kind of mystify me, but anyway, i would like to think a little bit also because england has had this model for a long time and other countries have had this model. as a public transparency and accountability system that welcomes everybody to be part of the conversation. i really appreciate the direction you are going in. >> i would concur with you regarding wasc which can be difficult with staff. and second, on the equity issue, what does that mean. can you give me your version of equity on that? >> i can tell you what i think, but as an organization what we are talking about is increased student achievement for every student in the district. i think part of what our work is really having deep and thoughtful discussions with districts themselves about what they mean when they say equity as well and how we have evidence that that's happening in the districts with the students and families we serve. so i think it is ultimately always about student achievement for every child and having evidence that that's taking place in all of our organizations and how we build conversation around that and then systemic muscle to deliver on that is really with a we see as a core part of our work. >> i agree with you. as you begin to hire personnel, you may want to hire a person who is an expert in equity. look at that separate piece over there because that is a big issue here in california. just a recommendation. >> yeah, thank you. >> i do want to go back to just that i agree with your comments going back to the wasc issue. it is an important distinction. i always thought about that more as a model. i understand that wasc is accreditation, that is compliance. going back to our previous conversation that we are doing something different, but the concept of the teams diving in team is more of what i'm looking at and know so much the compliance part of it. and the advantage, not wasc, with wasc the team comes in and you get your 6 years and they leave. to add to my comment before, we have those strike teams that go in and do that work and then you have the team of coaches that continue that level of engagement. so it's not all this work and then we'll see you in 6 years. they do a lot of this work but they follow up and check in and maybe some periodic day visits, that sort of thing as part of that. >> the community college model has several teams going in and out and training with critical inquiry and appreciative inquiry building on the strengths of every organization and fitting alongside confirming what they are seeing from their colleagues and their peers. i think kind of again learning from all of those models and taking the best of all of those models and listening to practitioner about what they feel the best assistance feels like and blending that altogether is really where these conversations will go in the next couple of months. >> will you go back to the three strands slide, please? >> i just wanted to see if anybody had any comments or questions about this. i will just kickoff and say, i really appreciate the way you articulated this especially the first one which i think it does model the learning organization. we are going to be working with have already begun working with 10 or 11 lea's, and to take that knowledge about what the work looks like, what is helpful, what is not helpful, what our teams look like and how often. i think that is very helpful and something we should think about as we build-out the organization. same with expansion area too. we talked a lot about can we be a repository and not just one and exclusive circumstances. i wanted to make sure people had a chance to think about these and if you have any comments or feedback to share with socorro or carl, that would be helpful. >> thank you. we look forward to bringing back the item. >> any other comments, carl? >> no. this is our best vision but certainly subject to input not only from this board, but from other key stakeholders. >> thank you. before i open it up for public comment, i think we have done this regularly but if we can post the agenda so people can see it as well. is there any public comment on item 5? okay, seeing none, we will move to item 6. this is on lc if;f professional development training implementation. >> i'm grateful to staff for all the hard work that went into this. i participated in sacramento and san jose and san diego. it was a huge undertaking, well executed. >> good morning, board. i'm excited to tell you how the pd plan was implemented on october 6th. the first one should be the document, the powerpoint itself, the second is the revised section for the workshop slides. we made some last minute changes after this went to print. in addition you have two one double sided version in english and spanish that will be discussed for workshop purposes. for those that are here at the table, there are black and white copies on the workshop section so you can follow along. we are going to cover all the pd plan of implementation and most of what will occur on the workshops in november. i want to start with reminding everyone with the context of where we are. for most of us, this will be repetitive, but it's good to set the stage for how we got to this piece of it. we were provided with $21 million with ccee to establish a statewide process to provide pd on the rubrics, are templates to support continuous improvement. part of this is for the training provided in each region of the state and available to all lea's. that report will come back particularly as we talk about the second component as it leads to the original leads and compliance library. these are the reference statutes that we must address in the training. we covered all of these but basically talks about the rubric primarily and the l cap and the continuous improvement and other key pieces of the lcff. october 6th, the governing board approved the plan and the department of finance notified us of the approval and state law provided that no expenditure can be made until they approved the plan. i'm going to turn it over to the assistant director for training and outreach, but before i do so, i want to express my appreciation to the number of people for the work that occurred over the last 2 months.. to erica and to sue lan for making miracles happen during the administration. the time we had was not a lot and the work they did was incredible. we had a consultant work with us, jason willis from west ed. he worked with us every step of the way with what the presentation is and how to implement it. and our colleague who opened workshops at many of these big locations with this inspirational talks about why we are all here. sujey and aida and socorro who was at all nine locations. [ laughter ] just to give you a sense, she woke up friday morning the 18 in redding, and she had to be 24 hours later in ontario to do another presentation. it was a hercule an efforts. i try to think of a cute phrase of how much work that -- he did. he took it boo -- by the horn. he made it happen. as you know i was out on family leave, and so i was not worried. i knew that esh would take care of it. thank you very much and i will turn it over to esh to walk you through what we did. >> good morning, everyone. can you hear me all right? esh, i look forward to the board and to sharing this with you. josh mentioned earlier that we are going to do some quick reminders. this slide is also a quick reminder. the purpose of the workshop at large is to establish say common baseline for looking for continuous improvements and the revising of the evaluation rubrics. we were looking at what they were going to look like and how they might use them. there were workshops from the 2-19. here are the numbers of actual attendees. the last time i came before you we had some rough estimate based on the registration we are seeing to date. this reflects the number of people who physically showed up which is slightly different from the number of registrants as some people didn't make it. overall, venue by venue, this is who showed up. a total of 1905 people. pretty exciting. with learned a lot of lessons, a lot of lessons through this process. one of the lessons is actually reflected in this slide. in the previous slide i showed the number of people who actually showed up, who were in attendance. but we didn't have a practice in place to be able to track the names of people who arrive with all of their information at the registration. so what you are seeing in this slide is a breakdown of those people who actually registered. we will account for this so that during the next set of workshops we can come back and show you the breakdown for the actual attendees, not by registration. these are the people who registered for the workshops. in the next slide you can see the title of the different people who were there. we really felt like it was important and i remember member sbranti talking about the importance of welcoming everyone in terms that everybody was present. this shows us the span of the people who were participating which is exciting from our end to see. so overall, we made note of a number of successes. i'm going to pass it shortly to socorro to describe these. before that, i want to thank you for the support and all from the department of education, melanie was a fabulous support and fabulous presenter and we want to say very specifically thank you for that. she did a really good job. and to josh sitting to my left, you are right. he was away, but he didn't sleep up to the weeks up to the time he was away. socorro, i will pass it to you for any comments you want to share. >> i want to echo the strength of the team and esha's leadership and the key and the role of this department. melanie was an incredible partner in the work and it was very menial full for participants to have us all on stage together and for them to see us as a unified delivery of service. it was logistically and practical and very valuable. we recognized as a team and understood what this presentation was for. so people that answered with a lot of expertise in the rubrics themselves just probably didn't add to their repertoire of information because they were already experts. but what we began doing early on in the presentation was asking people to identify themselves as a 5, 3, or 1 in terms of level of knowledge. people left feeling more confidence. it was clear as a presenter people left feeling more confident about the basics and feel they can begin the conversation when the data becomes live. teams that came in particular, it was most helpful for a varied group to learn together with parents, teachers, students that were even some of the best experiences and staff, all of them together working through the information and coming to an understanding about what this would mean and they go back and situate conversations in their l cap and district improvement conversations. so that was exciting. it was very exciting when students and families were there that made a great difference in terms of the energy in the room, and particularly for people outside of our everyday conversations about education. the layout in which it was done and the thoughtfulness of esh and jason and creating a step by step basic understanding of the tool itself to form conversations really paid off very well for people to feel this data enriched conversations when they go home and what to do in their districts and how to outline that in the l cap process. >> thank you, socorro. so just a few other quick thoughts on this particular slide and we'll continue on. you can see the first bullet specifically talks about feedback. after we are done with this section, sujey is going to talk about the results. we did get some positive feed backs on the rubrics and some of the school districts had positive feedback. we want to support local agencies on this part. you also have in front of you a copy of the spiral background primer. something that we were proud of is at the end of the many workshops there were request for additional copies. in some places we actually got calls from people who weren't in attendance. this is something we are going to think about as we look to additional workshops. i mentioned earlier that we do some lessons and i want to call that out. some of the lessons we learned happened before the workshops. i would like to thank all those that came to the training, county offices. a number of those agencies gave us great input. after that, we got feedback that informed our thinking as well. that first bullet came up over and over again. we keep thinking about how do we address the needs of audiences with really diverse backgrounds. socorro came to me with this outset that came with a level of experience of 1, 3, 5 by raising of their hands and we subjected messaging based on the group and really took that into account and adjust that accordingly. where some of the activities we went through faster. josh talked about logistics. we learned that temperature really does matter. in rooms where it was cold, we learned that was something we needed to address quickly. it's something we are going to try to tend to in the future and second, we had a number of people asking for materials. we are going to make this available so people can access all of our materials. >> we have some things that are in process. melanie and i went to the studio, it is going to be available and you can access the materials on the website. during the workshops we asked people to include social q and a which is an application where people can enter in a question and rank it or vote for it. the top vote getting questions rise to the top, and we are going to be putting together and faq for questions either through a tablet and working with the california department of ed and our target is to look to early 2017 to get something finalized and shared with everyone. >>, so everything i have talked about so far has been about the november workshops. there are also going to be spring workshops. we'll try to take lessons learned so far. we know that we have already know we need to start thinking about venues. that's under way. again, the most optimal way to engage audience and whether they may need the same information and where we make adjustments for new information. we will do like we did in the november workshop asking people for input and start the training workshops in 2017. i will turn back to you and ask you if you have any questions at all. >> when and if you are able to sort out the data, maybe i missed it. how many school districts were represented in one way or another in the workshops, and of those districts did they represent the majority of the state student population like get the big ones, l.a., san diego. just curious and would that help us if we knew more targeting invitation if they come and if they didn't attend, how do we prioritize and outreach for them to come. >> this you for the question. we are in the process of trying into that question because we are curious for the same reasons. the challenges as you might imagine, someone might enter in berkeley unified school district and berkeley usd and it comes up as two entities. we are having to go through all 2800 registrants and make sure it's the same. we are working on it and we'll get that information to you as soon as we have it. we weren't able to prepare it for today's meeting. thank you. >> other questions? i just want to say before you go on how proud i am of all the work you did. you took on a hercule an task and to pull it together with the cooperation of the department and the counties. i think we have talked about this before, but we have never tried to engage the entire spectrum. we have with board members and others but not with parents and people engaging. just kudos to all of your work. it's amazing to me. >> i couldn't agree more. i think it's great model in terms of what we are looking for in that collaboration. there are teachers, administrators and board members and bringing everyone together including the external stakeholders is certainly not unprecedented but not going to happen often and to be the convener in that on a regular basis sets us apart and to do that level of work is extraordinary. so great job. >> all right. thank you very much. i'm going to pass it over to suji. >> we are heading to the numbers section of the presentation which is the best part. [ laughter ] we wanted to go into this and make sure as we went into the workshop to provide immediate feedback in how we wanted to rule out the workshop, but also thinking about how this would impact our future development, future workshop trainings and future content development. you have copies of the survey in front of you. there is a brief survey of 17 questions which we wanted to capture around mandated questions about the evaluation rubric and all with continuous improvement and changing practice with lea's. these were offered in paper copy as well as online in english and spanish. the vast majority turns out that people love a hard copy survey. some of the delays have been inputting those in manually. we are happy to go back and look at some of the additional questions. with those surveys really had five sections of questions attached to them. the first really looked at it measuring increase in learning or the content knowledge that folks were walking away with. there were four questions around whether to what degree attendees felt the workshop was understanding around the local control funding formula, what makes up the lcff. and that again was measured on that continuum and not all, moderately and to a great deal. the next step further looking at the impact information as they were walking away from the workshops. so really having attendees reflect upon the degree of the information would help them with the lea's and using the evaluation rubric in their work, increase the effectiveness of their work and share information about lcff and l cap and that is in a scale to not at all to a great deal. the third set of questions got a little bit more closely into implementation. this was to lea's staff and what degree they felt that lea's were working with stakeholders and to the degree which they felt that lea's were implementing the l cap. and again that's a 4 points scale. the next question was around content format. these were questions about objectives and quality meeting objective and whether they strongly disagree to strongly agree that the formats of media, the questions answer session, the partner activities and generally the format of the workshops helped them learn this information. the question we want to focus on today is really around this third question which ultimately to what degree the attendees understand the evaluation rubric. we got to the heart of the purpose of the workshops. and so what we did was pull out this information over all across all of the workshops by date. so, as we were going through the workshops, we were collecting this information both hard copy and electronically engaging how attendees were feeling about the amount of learning that they were getting around the lcff evaluation rubric. this here breaks down the responses about the particular questions about understanding the evaluation rubric by workshop date. you can see sacramento took a first workshop on the second to the left moving to our right with a workshop in ontario on the 19th. for each workshop date is 4 bars that corresponds to the answers available to the question about increasing the understanding about the rubric. the purple bars indicates the response in raw numbers. the raw numbers of attendees who responded that not at all that they increased the understanding of their evaluation rubrics, the beige bar being somewhat and the light dark orange bar is what we wanted to see that they felt their understanding either moderately or great deal of understanding. you can see the great majority of the respondents felt they understood moderately or increased. and the majority responded with a great deal. you see the pattern and where we did see more than we wanted to of those attendees feeling that their learning was not as great as we would have wanted them to be. so, that promoted us to really take a deeper dive into some of those initial comments and survey responses after the first and second surveys. we did this after each of the workshops to really get a sense of what's going on and take a look at that feedback. you can see over time that feedback was implemented and josh and esh talked about little pieces of that feedback of incorporating some of the changes of the key pieces and even things as simple as in the first two workshops we received a lot of comments about even the ability to hear. so, something that we took away was that what we started in the last couple of workshops in a room that big so many attendees did not provide the audio clarity that we needed so we pulled away from the microphones in the workshops and all the comments about the audio and being able to hear the speakers completely disappeared from the workshop. and there were also some fundamental and substantive changes to the concept itself. in the first set we received few comments about pacing, some of the time that we allocated to specific activities and making sure we were being more attuned with the background knowledge that attendees were coming into the workshop with, and made some changes even in terms of the pacing of the workshop itself. you can see that i think we see that reflected in how workshop attendees felt about it as we went through the workshop dates. so, in addition to kind of taking a look at that, i think one of the key pieces as we started to take a look at some of the attendees was addressing the needs of the actual stakeholders being represented at these workshops. this next slide takes a look at that same question about understanding or increase in understanding of the lcff evaluation rubric but breaking it down by attendees stakeholders groups. this is a look at the workshop but the average response as you think about these four responses not being coded as a one, 3 is moderately and four is a great deal. as you see from left to right the order of the numbers in terms of stakeholders in each group. schools representing half of the survey respondents. we had about 860 respondents out of the 2,000 attendees providing full survey feedback. we have county offices, charter advocacy, statewide, and the last group we lumped the groups together because they were smaller and broken down, there were not any real great differentiations in the way they responded. this is really helpful for us to see. the dotted line indicates the average score of attendees. for the most part our attendees were walking away of a 3.0 or higher which is moderately they were walking away with a greater understanding of the work. and those who are partners in terms of developing materials and providing workshops and really deeply involved in a delivery of information to districts and schools around these evaluation rubric that their learning would not be on a steep curve because they are not new to this information. i think this is really helpful for us to think about as we think through our next steps with our workshop and materials and how we might want to focus in more specifically toward audiences because this was a key part of that conversation. the next slide i'm not going through them individually but you have them all in front of you. these are just breakdowns by the type of questions. again, the colored bars represent the attendees stakeholder groups. these are the four questions around content knowledge and understanding lcff and rubrics and the increase in knowledge and complexity. understanding loiflcff on the left -- and as you move to more complex concepts and increases in understanding is also going up and the amount that they are learning new from this workshop increased across all groups. in this set of questions was around the application of the information that they were learning from the workshops. so you see a bit of a par abolic curve where the u-shaped curve where the questions are a little bit more direct. will today's workshop help me and the evaluation of the rubric might work and share the information about lcff and l cap with others. as we go back to the right, the higher than two in the middle cover a little bit more abstractor indirectly about the implication or information in terms of their work and supporting student learning. you can see the differentiation by groups. this next set of questions, that third set around lea's staff and stakeholders and the lea's implementation of the l cap development process around stakeholders in the process and on the right effectively implementing the l cap, we wanted to start to capture some implementation in the field and think about how we were tracking changeover time as knowledge spread across the state and we started to measure it's use in the field. and then again the next two sets were really around the content and formats around objectives and again all over 3.0 from moderately to high range as well as the formats in media and feeling good if the structure that there was a lot of interactive session and a lot of comments about liking that time for teams that did come in teams being able to share and discuss and think about what this really meant for them as an lea or agency. i wanted to include some of the representative comments and all that came that we will be forwarded on to folks at partners at ccee and the state board. some comments about feeling great about the rubric and about the way the rubric looked, the design, the application of it. we had a lot of comments from parents, students, state board members who were really excited about the direction of the new rubric and the clarity and the idea about multiple measures and what they think about this when they go back to their teams and preparing for how to talk about this information together when the data goes live later this winter and being prepared and excited to be part of that conversation. it's exciting to see school members coming to the table, excited to take this back and being a deeper part of the conversation and anticipated, charter school folks about the opportunity to learn and share this information as well, district directors, community members, parents. then i guess some other piece we did want to take away for ourselves in thinking about what this would mean for us as we thought through deeper dive into the workshop coming forward. the key piece that josh mentioned differentiation was clearly for take away for us. this information was really helpful in setting the stage and bringing everybody together, the stakeholders together to hear the message for the first time. i think it was really great for our folks that were really knowledge about the content information and hear the questions bubbling up from parents, school folks that were hearing and seeing this for the first time. but now as we get deeper into the work and the data goes live, there is a lot of questions about how we might want to break this up so we can dive more deeply and take into account their perspectives and background knowledge as to the application of learning. again, thinking of some of our comments from our county office and school district folks coming in and asking us to consider whether or not that might be a place to really use prior knowledge as a way to differentiate learning in the future. with that, i think there are, i know esh and josh are presenting and now the next steps of this unless there are any questions. >> any questions or comments? thank you. very thorough. >> i think it's good to do that post analysis to see the results in terms of the surveys and that important process of being reflective and making modifications as you go is really important. >> i will reiterate what i said is that it reflects the diversity of the audience. so to tease out the folks that want to do advanced or intermediate versus who wants to do it versus someone who needed a baseline of understanding and how positive the charters felt because they kind of get left behind a lot of times which being outsiders which i do not agree with that position, but there is also a need for everybody to be on the same page as it related to this. i'm really gratified to see this from the charter community. >> that definitely was the best part. >> we are going to move on now to component 2 and discuss this now at a different board meetings. this is all focused on sort of aligned local trainings. the real motivation here is to support the aligned local trainings for continuous improvements and what we have talked a lot about the trendings in l cap and what's around the state. this is very much keyed in on that possibility with the rubrics in particular and how we want to avoid that as much as possible. regardless of whether you are a parent, board member, superintendent, that you are hearing not necessarily uniform message, but consistent message and aligned around how to understand these two tools. this component contains 2 pieces, first is the lcff content library and the cases which we will discuss a little bit more later. i'm going to start with the content library. it's repetitive, but this content is consistent and up to date and accurate. so that, again, regardless of who you are, regardless of what training you receive, if you receive training from this content from this library, you know it will be up to date, accurate and consistent. the scope, because of the timing of where we are at is likely to focus on the rubrics. we had a sense of what the rubrics are. it was approved by the board and a number of training by county offices and others. we are growing from that point. but with the newness of the template, there is a more accurate template. the library will expand it but right now likely to focus on the rubrics. we are focused on the lea's. that is the purpose in statute but it will be applicable and usable for all lea's users too. next week on november 6th and 7, we -- december 6th-7, we are holding a content developing meeting. we have a 200-piece of content, maybe 225. those items expand the gamete. some focus on the rubrics, priorities, the funding formula and basic aspects of lcff. we have been reviewing the content. we will bring forward some key items for discussion next week where there is not agreement, not perceived agreement across all stakeholders. the hope will not necessarily be to reach agreement, per say, but to get an understanding of what the concerns are of various stakeholders on these particular pieces of content. this approved content from discussions and consultation with the leaders in education. the content development meetings will not be the only way to submit and review content, but they will be our preferred way. if someone were to submit content in january or february, we would consult with a regional leads as to whether or not we want to put that content on hold until the next content development meeting or whether we felt like it made sense simply putting into library immediately and it would depend on the type of content and disagreement on the content itself. we don't want the only weight for the content of the meeting to be added to the library. in terms of the use of that content, ownership would stay with whoever created it and submitted it. if you then used the content in the training, you identify the content from the library. again, we want to be clear if you are saying say statement based on content from the library that it is known as such by the audience. so people can obviously have their opinion and their own perspective and what should be added, but if you want to use the statement that this is library content, it needs to be clear and consistent with what others are saying. and in order to, we really want to support this idea of getting trained on the library before somebody goes out and uses that content. again, an -- alignment piece for those training school board members and community members, that this alignment is what this key piece is all about. now touching on regional leads. they have two areas of responsibilities. one is training, the other is supporting the content library. we'll be in conjunction with each regional lead developing a training plan and the responsibility will be to ensure that all school districts in the region have access to an -- aligned local training based on the library and making this available to charter schools very well and the regional plan will develop that for all the regions. in terms of the regional leads library content, we are asking the offices to propose content and reviewing and sorting content and creating contents if there are gaps and sending our representatives to attend these content development meetings so they can be partners in this process as we develop the library. so that's in brief component two. there is a lot more to say after the meeting. questions on this component. >> who is in the content development meetings? >> it will be a variety. a lot of county office of education, but there will be state association, sba, aksa, non-profits. the brick isn't the same type of workshop but the same type of groups and entity of people. >> is it invitation only? >> no. it's open. if people are watching and they want to attend, they can e-mail us and we will register them for the meeting next week. >> thank you. >> josh, can you give me an example of something you foresee being deliberated that would go into the content? >> sure. so, i could envision there being some content submitted that covers how the rubrics are supposed to be used. and i use the word supposed to in intentionally because the rubrics are tools. they can be used many different ways and depending on the local content. it's not the wrong-way to use the rubric, but there isn't a required way per say with one exception with the relationship between the rubric and the l cap. so content of using from the library and a way of using the rubric about tools of continuous improvement that it is an opinion or a suggestion, but not necessarily phrased as a requirement. that is one substantive one that will need to be discussed. another example is a 50 page powerpoint that really has a content on 45 of the pages, but on five of the slides it is a little bit outdated. we may want to discuss as a group do we go back to the creator and asking do you mind revising these 5 pages and the expectations of what those revised slides might look like since they are not going to have the opportunity to review that powerpoint before being submitted to the library. >> this you for that. so lea's can provide clarity to the parents. is there a way to track it if the library content is being used. >> one of the areas we are still working out is this question. we've had a number of discussions about it and i certainly welcome the feelings of the board. the balance is we want to acknowledge the reality of how the field works. if i am a trainer from a school district to county office or really any entity, and the ccee doesn't have any sort of financial or formal authority over my actions, will that person always report back to the ccee on what they do, and we will certainly benefit from that. i don't think we can anticipate that happening from this situation. it maybe a disincentive to use that. we want the library to be user friendly and content rich as possible so it's an attractive place for superintendents to go, non-profits, county offices to go to see what's available and not have to create it on their own. >> thank you for the presentation. i just want to get a little bit more clarity about the regional leads. who are the regional leads and how are they chosen? >> we partner with ccesa and this is a model. >> josh, we are going to have a big discussion on this for item 7, especially those who are monitoring and waiting for item 7. >> that's true. thank you, madam chair. >> i can cover it in more depth then. >> okay. my next question is you mention this area of content disagreement and with stakeholders you are not going to have a unanimous thought. can you give us a couple examples of where this content disagreement is occurring? >> sure. i should be clear we don't anticipate there to be consensus at these development meetings. it is to get feedback, and as we all know sometimes you disagree with the feedback you get, but it's important to get it nonetheless. we may anticipate that there might be some content around how the rubrics are used as i mentioned to member navo that are phrased in the way that you must use the rubrics in this way, for example, you must focus on every single student group that gets a red for every student indicator. that might be something to practice or encourage, but it may not be required per the law or registration. we want to have discussions around how it's phrased in the proposed content. how it could be modified to more accurately reflect something that we, you know, would want and be comfortable and having in the library. >> just for me, looks likes a good housekeeping seal of approval. the idea and josh said this a number of time, in statute was that there be kind of a baseline that everybody agreed to and the consultation of the l cap and lcff would be across the state. i think this is your most challenging work for a couple of reasons not to the least that people will disagree with the feedback. for me, it's okay to say if you disagree with the feedback and the panel knows about the county office and the collaborative, we are going to say we are not going to put it in the library. so you go off and do, i hear feedback and people have very disparity opinions and many people have issues that don't pertain to the law and what is actually required. that's the challenge here. i wonder about whether or not this will become outdated very quickly because it strikes me that right now you have a lot of work to do which we just heard about in your development workshops for everybody to understand what this new l cap looks likes and the rubrics and what this continuation looks like. i know it's going to evolve. i don't know how you will keep that up. we are going to have conversation about the content of library and whether or not that is reasonable and once we get it calibrated and we think it's aligned and go for it and do things locally. that's the challenge for me in the content library. i did have a couple of questions and clarification. my understanding is that people who submit for this and train off the content library will not be allowed to charge. >> so that was in an earlier draft of the plan. the plan that was approved in october didn't answer that question directly for a couple of reasons. you know, as we are a public agency, we received one time funding to do this time of work, so it didn't seem appropriate to then allow others to use the content and charge for. regardless, those who will use it do need to be charged to recover some cost. what we are working on as we sort of implement this is to make sure to strike that right balance. we want to make this a meaningful acceptable and usable library and not allow people to sort of profit off the work that we are doing. so we are still in discussions as to how that would look. >> i want to hear more about that because as you think my hunch is much of the content will be used with public funds with school districts. i generally dislike cottage industries being developed out of public school education. i would like that if possible. >> okay. agreed. >> other questions? >> one of the things we may want to look at josh is making sure the library information is proprietary and that will help with making decisions about making this a cottage industry. i would like to make sure the information is proprietary. >> i think there has been a robust discussion particularly with county offices who have developed a lot of the content and have concern about retaining their owner ship if you will. i'm not sure what that completely means because as far as i know it's public information. anyway, i appreciate it and josh would appreciate having that conversation too. >> i will move to component 3. we have component 1 and 2. component 3 is much deeper learning and based on a model of professional learning communities and sharing initiatives from participating network. it's less than the facilitator or training upon the participants. the first sort of level of networks are the pln's. this is a name we landed on. they will have a facilitator for each pln and those facilitators belong to the plx. the professional learners exchange. >> we have information on what those networks will look like and we expect to launch these in january and looking at the active participants and making sure the documents are ready to go. at the previous meeting in october, the governing board approved two plx coaches and we have a plx training designed by the plx coaches. we are excited for that. questions on component 3? no. 4 is support desk. this component is to create an opportunity for ccee and partners to respond to substantive inquiries about this effect and how documents can be used as tools for continuous improvement. to get to the chair's point about calibration, we'll be consulting with those other entities to respond. we want to make sure we are on the same page so if they respond with the questions, it's aligned with what we are saying and this is expected to go live in spring of 2017. it was asked for examples and what questions we would or not responsibility to. i want to be clear that we have not vetted these with others. this is our thinking around what fits and what doesn't fit. i can't find my rubric on the website, help me find it. that's something we would respond to. does the brown act comply to the committee meeting. it's not something we would respond to. is the explanation for a school wide action or service in my l cap legally sufficient? that is not our role. that is a county office, state board, sbe rule. not envisioning this is a support desk we are responding to. what support desk can respond to. how can i evaluate my rubric for my graduation rate for better informed goals in my l cap? this isn't a compliance question for how to fill out my l cap and certainly don't and others ka provide a response. but we feel this is a support desk that is one of of our other sources that an lea can go to. this is why we connect with sbe. we don't want to give inconsistent message here with the county office. we don't want to school district to say, i don't like the information that the county office gave me and i'm going to -- ccee. we want to provide the information we have. we use the resources for graduation rate to generate ideas. we have the specific needs in a local connect say a small high school and we need more and where can we look. maybe this relates to the larger discussion we had around item 5, best practices. so that is also something that we think is important to respond to and to highlight that last point that this is not only the support desk, this is one resource that lea's could have but that they could also go to many other locations as well. so that is the end of component 4 and the end of the presentation. any questions? >> michael? you talked about trying to be congruent with all the different agencies, but i think it's going to be very difficult and i don't know of a plan to make that happen. i think a flowchart would be helpful. in other words they come to you first when you come to the county office cde otherwise you will get a different number of responses to the questions. having integrity in what we are doing, we need to really flush that out so it doesn't happen. so maybe a flowchart can possibly help you along those lines. >> that's a very good idea. it relates to the questions to have -- [inaudible] she's always there for me. [ laughter ] to repeat, i think a flowchart in connection with the intake process so that when the inquiry comes in, we don't take it at face value, but the content and what have you heard and we do our own reaching out as well and not just connecting with the inquirer but talking with the state board and others. i appreciate that very much and agree with it. >> tim? >> just one thought. i know that there is, i know the examples are good in the types of questions to respond to. any e-mail we should respond to. refer them. we don't need to answer the merits of their question, but maybe refer them to state board or refer them to their county office. i don't want to be non-responsive because i think especially in the beginning, although it's set up to answer more of the higher level questions, probably in the first 6 months or year you are going to get some of those baseline questions. so even referring them to the right place. >> matt? >> assuming on this one, i think we talked last time about a way to track them and a little bit more of a process to see the actual calling. this is the one component i think that i have the most angst around because i'm wondering if it turns into that you are getting questions around these kinds of we are not going to support those kinds of questions and people stop using it because those are the questions they have and to go to the other types of questions, it takes a considerable amount of time to make that happen. so, i guess in terms of how you this structurally is laid out, i'm envision someone is waiting by the phone waiting for the phone to ring. how do >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> >> we worked with ccesa has worked in other capacities where the original lead makes the selection and we have worked with those leads and happy with what the region has selected. the regional lead counties have listed in item 1 for the regions. to reiterate what the responsibilities are ensure the trainings on lcff are made available. regional lead in two are at the county. they need to make sure that training rubrics are made available to all the districts in modot county fixed and they will train the school districts and support of the content library. it's $70,000 per regional lead. that's item 7. any questions? >> can i make a comment? the counties in the region talk together and they collectively come up with who they would recommend to be the lead. >> that was the process used, yes. >> for clarification purposes, los angeles is its own region. >> like some regions like region two, for example, like northern california, they have a number of counties. i can't remember how many they have up there. there are maybe ten or so. region 3 has sacramento and the surrounding counties have similar. i think michael's region has only four counties. so i only say that just to show off my knowledge of counties, but also to ask the question about $70,000 for each region. there is no sliding scale. it's irrespective of the number of counties and ada and all of that? >> correct. we had some discussion based upon the number of school districts and lea's in the region since that is the focus we want to drill down to but the amount of money which is not super significant, it made sense to keep it the very basic way of allocating the resources and responsibilities for supporting that region. my understanding that the county will also develop some training that maybe ahead of the ccee. i'm trying to understand the difference between the county developed training and the ccee development that i think and how that's going to work with the regional lead. i was a big supporter of this notion of the county as very specific and important role of playing in this overall structure and especially with the own district where they have all the responsibility are all on the same page. i'm a little bit confused about the separate training provided by the counties versus ccee and how that leads. if you want to talk about that. i know that in my conversations, the county timelines are different than the ccee timelines. they want to move more in an expeditious, and the fact that they didn't have the capacity. but again, i agree with sue with how we connect the dots. maybe you can help us with that. >> with the county superintendent. michael is right because when all the rubrics come out and the template was adopted in november. so, we know that the district is starting to work on their template in january. we wanted to be ready for all that work. the next step is working with the regional leads to have a liaison and to have our policy director working to make sure that all of our trainings have that same message so there is no different message going from counties to -- ccee. so i know we are working closely with ccee so they have the same message we are sharing with them. >> sandra, can i ask your initial training was around the county's training each other or training all the curriculum folks and the business folks in county offices, but it wasn't directed at districts? >> correct. the initial training was just for county staff. >> the issue of the went library we talked about, will the county be submitting all the materials for the content? >> we've done that. >> that's the calibration? >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> madam chair, that's what i was going to mention. the training materials have been submitted and i don't anticipate any reason to elaborate of course. in addition, many of the regional leads in their respective counties in the region are already moving forward for training sessions in january. even though the plan for this component aren't due until the end of january, in conversations we had with the regional leads we have a back date to those trainings to incorporate them into the plan so we are not requiring them to do it all over again because of some bureaucratic reason. we wanted to merge the efforts and support the work and the county through the regional leads that they are already doing. >> i also think as a point of clarification one of the things from the grander trainings that we did, they weren't personalized. so the expectation as the county office can provide a more contextualized handy approach that they are working with everyday and that is a clear indication of what we did versus county that will be live data. a district will be very personally speaking about their data and that is not what we proposed in november. >> thank you, sandra. i appreciate the feedback. >> madam chair, i forget the exact order, but i have the motion if you are ready, but don't want to rush it. >> okay. but josh has completed his presentation on item 7. it is an action item. i'm happy to entertain a motion. >> mic please. >> i authorize the director contract authorization for regional lead county office of education in attachment 2. >> second. >> it's been seconded. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? motion carries. okay, item 8. josh. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] this is the implementation of the pd plan. as i mentioned before we have 28 adopted plx. some have facilitators, some co-facilitators. we have 40 facilitators that requires three plx coaches, 13 facilitators per plx. two have been approved. we are very excited about those two individuals. we needed a third. so we reached out through a variety of sources from recommendations and they recommended that we work with a director from ventura county office of ed, andy. this is a request to contract with the ventura county office of ed not to exceed $60,000 plus travel and lodging for a third plx coach from the first of today through june of 2017. >> okay, before i ask for any questions or comments, i neglected to ask whether there was any public comment on item 7? any public comment? okay. thank you. back to item 8. any questions or comments to josh's presentation? okay, seeing none, i would entertain a motion on this item? >> i'm making a motion to add the plx coach contract. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? i'm supposed to ask for public comment before we do this. i'm new at this. i'm practicing. any public comment on item 8. okay. item 9. josh? >> as i mentioned in the remarks on item 6, we have worked with west ed to serve as a content consultant to help us develop the fall workshops and develop the content for the meeting next week. their support has been essential to this success for what we have done so far. we want to continue to be able to work with them. we have used up almost all of the contract that we had with them, since they were so useful and important. so we wanted to one, continue our work, expand the scope to include component 4 around the support desk. currently the scope is just the workshops and the content elaborate, and to increase the contract with additional optional entries of 30. the total potential amount would be $200,000. >> any questions, comments. any public comment on this item? okay. i'm ready to entertain a motion. >> i move, that we authorize the contract for content consulting services, for components 1, 2 and 4 of lcff professional development training implementation plan. >> may i suggest we we include the office of fiscal agent. we authorize the director and the fiscal agent. >> second. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded. any public comment? all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? any opposition? that's passed unanimously. >> are we done with you, josh? item 10. >> i will be back. aida? >> thank you, good morning. madam chair and board members. i will be presenting item 10. it is an action item. this is to ask, staff is requesting approval for our three additional pilot programs that districts greenfield union element school district, dos palos loma unified school district and newark unified school district. we had an opportunity to be at each of our districts for one or 2 days. i will start to talk a little bit about each of the districts. we began with actually dos palos. socorro met with the district superintendent and had a presentation with the board and very happy to be a participating district. it is a small rural district in the central valley. it's in merced county. it has an enrollment of 2277 with an unduplicated count of 90% and a high latino population at 77%. 29% of the students are identified as english learners and found the district to be amenable. the board did approve unanimously to participate in the program. it partners with ccee and new superintendent in position and we are very excited to be with him. greenfield element, we spent two half days, suji myself, >>carl cohn, ed.d: and we met with the community, parents. it's a great community to be working with. it also has a new superintendent. a very high latino composition. we also did receive unanimous support and they are also very excited for us to be there. our next district was newark unified school district. this district is also a new superintendent in the district. we made a board presentation >>carl cohn, ed.d: and myself. we met with the board, a very involved board and really interested in how to support this issue of declining enrollment. in the last 5 years they have lost over 600 students. they lose their students to their neighboring school district, fremont district. their goal is to be a district of choice. and the school collected -- selected in the county of alameda and a diverse population. spanish speaking population is 53% and also about 26% of the students are english learners. we are funding the districts as i mentioned before at $50 for their enrollment count and $75 for their unduplicated amount. dos palos is $265 and greenfield 276? >> what's the process, let's say newark is getting half a million dollars. what's the accountability for those dollars? >> the money sits in with ccee. we don't just put the money in the account. we begin with the process of where the support and areas there is need. once we establish this, we look at their own plan, we look at the funding sources and the l cap to determine if in fact there is needed funding. we are going to find there are going to be areas where there are additional dollars needed in the areas where the money is already there. specifically how we'll tell you how we spend the dollars, we won't know until we know what the area of focus is going to be and how much that is going to take. in the case they don't have the sources in their own budgets to do this work. >> once you determine that area of focus, how are you going to accomplish that? what's your plan for that support? >> each district will have a lead and that lead will determine the support for the district. we are not looking at contracting anyone out yet. we are looking to manage the work. if there is an area specifically that we can't support, yes, we will contract out. but that's not where we are right now. we are looking at them determining their area of focus, building capacity at the district level. it can come in a variety of ways. it could be in governance. we have a district currently right now asking for support with their governing board. we have the capacity to do that and we have >>carl cohn, ed.d: to support us in that area and that will not be any cost to the district. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> other questions or comments? aida, can you just refresh my memory last time we approved four? >> yes, we approved woodland unified school district palos verdes and marin county and sauls alito. >> i want to say you have been a great advocate or you have been recruiting. greenfield is one that sticks to me. the state board tried to take over greenfield and applied an academic trustee. it's been a challenging district. they have really the best interest of the students at heart. i'm glad they are doing that and appreciate that. both the geographic of diversity and the economically disadvantaged. i don't know the foster youth there. i am very small. i appreciate the work you have done to cultivate that. we are very interested in learning about them. >> right. i'm willing to entertain a motion. first, is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, i appreciate a motion please. >> in making a motion, i will also indicate the diversity of the location is great and it looks like you have large english learner and addressing this with the best approach is great. i move this item. >> second. >> we have a motion and second. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? it passes unanimously. item 11. josh? >> still good morning. when esh and i sat down after the planning phase of the workshop and the workshop itself, we figured out that after the planning we need two additional staff people. we worked with the hr department and we came up with a new position, senior manager for training. this is an item to request actually two people to fill this position. two senior managers for training. the need here is straight forward. now we have a sense of what it takes to implement the pd plan. workshop planning and implementation requires more staff. we want to continue this outreach with stakeholders. we need to be out at the same time. including expanding the content library. the 200 files to be submitted and the maintenance of those files and views and dates. the trainings of individuals to access the library, and the support desk. while we are planning what that will look like, whether it's someone actually getting on the phone and talking with the person, working with cde state board to develop a response to the inquiry, we think that these two positions will be critical over the next two 1/2 years to make sure that we can implement this as successfully as we have so far. that's basically the presentation. i should mention that these two new positions don't require or don't involve any increase in towards spending. it's in the (2) 000-0000 budget and first year budget. $5 million was planned to be suspended approved by the board last month and it's in that allocation for year one as well. >> do you want to clarify that positions will be potentially termed out if additional funding is not? >> yes. thank you. because the two positions are part of the $20 million budget. when the $20 million runs out at the end of 18-19 school year, june of 2019. these positions will no longer be funded and the positions will be eliminated. >> so i will ask apropos of our conversation on item 5, whether you see these positions morphing into or dropping off or becoming something, we can see clearly what those steps look like when we see the expansion plan come back. >> very much so. i wholeheartedly support the creation of these positions. i think it will allow us to achieve our mission and although things may a little bit over time based on the needs, one thing that will never change is the need for training and the need for professional development and the engagement in the field. so some of the tacticses and positions may change, i recommend we move forward. >> i move that we approve creation of new positions senior manager training. >> the accrual and the fiscal agent to hire those two positions. >> so moved. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. passes unanimously. >> just to say thank you. for those who are watching, esh and i are really good to work with. put that on the record. great. item 12. josh. >> this does not involve a powerpoint. there was a miscommunication when esh was hired around the healthcare costs and when he was enthusiastically going to work for us, but in order to address the communication around the difference in what the healthcare premium contribution for the employee would be, we wanted to adjust the salary so what we committed to him is actually what he receives. this is a slight increase to his annual salary to understand what the healthcare cost would be. >> any questions, comments? >> i would move approval of the item. >> okay, it's been moved and seconded. is there any public comment on item 12? seeing none. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? that passes unanimously. thank you. >> item 13, carl. >>carl cohn, ed.d: this item is an interesting one. it comes to us with a number of concerns. as you know the county office is the fiscal agent for the collaborative and in the last couple weeks or so had some very interesting conversations in history discussions about the origin of this road that the riverside county office of ed has been playing for us. we were alerted a few weeks ago that there was a new conversation taking place between riverside and the cde with regard to the indirect cost associated with the ccee contract, and one of the things that we wanted to do was to bring this to the board for discussions in my communications with the county office of ed. they have indicated that their position basically is that they want to be held harmless for the work that they are doing to support the collaborative, and at one point the conversation was around an increase in indirect cost from 1 percent to 7.19%. so this has been in the mix in the discussion. yesterday when i met with jeff bell at the department of finance, he reminded me that the governor's budget bill memorialized his role as the approver of all expenditures with regard to the ccee. he felt that these discussions should rightfully start with the department of finance, but there are also other issues, and i just want to say personally to ken young, i know he is leaving for a new position, how much i have appreciated the role at the riverside county office has played and the help that they have been, but this may well be the beginning of a new conversation. >> tim, do you want to talk about the issue? >> so a little bit of background. when the county office was first invited to submit proposals for the work along with other county offices to be the fiscal agent and i think actually it was even broader than that, the scope of work was, the agency didn't really exist more than on paper. and i think at the time there was an expectation that the county was going to play a role that would not have much cost affiliated with that. so, the county agreed to provide the indirect, the whole support service system, the collaborative for 1%. and as time went on, our cost up until this point have far exceeded over 1% overall. we have an agreement with the department to continue the existing contract work that was originally set up for 1%. really what the indirect request for consideration has to do with i think it's two amendments to the contract. both of them have to do with the pilot work and with the other piece of work that's taking place. i don't know what the name of that is, josh? professional development? i was thinking it was networks. [ laughter ] the question really applies to those two specific areas of the work. some amendments to the contract, and the 7% whatever the exact rate is, that's the cde approved indirect rate. so, we are looking to ask the collaborative, the department of finance to consider a different indirect rate for that work from the original work. that's still in contract and in this scope. that's why the county office brought this up. we had began conversations with the department a few months back. the contract renewed in october? >> the contract goes through march. >> okay. that contract i thought went through october. that's where we are at this point. >> okay. >> just a question. this is on the indirect cost. is there clarity or should more work be done to bring greater clarity to the direct cost? there is expenses that you have as part of the overhead which i understand is indirect cost and there are specifics that staff needs to come here. we are requesting some specific work item from the riverside office of education. are those billed then directly reimbursed and is there initiative to work through along the bigger issue? >> michael? >> you were looking for differentiation between direct cost and indirect cost. i think the indirect cost and by their nature are parts that are pretty hard to define because there are different level pieces to it. the direct cost would be the -- i'm trying to think off my head to what would be involved in the indirect cost that is not included in the 1% contract that was already established. off the top of my head, i don't have the pieces to that but i understand what you are asking for. >> i think that's a reasonable request as we look at the staffing at ccee. so i have no issue with that request to the department of finance. my greater concern i think is your loss, ken, i want to again support your efforts with the ccee and your support with the county of supts as -- superintendent as you have been a leader with us. my understanding is your board has not chosen one yet, is that correct? >> that's correct. the board will make that decision in february. >> i know if that person had been as supportive as you were at ccee is a question. will they support the board of ccee? that's my question to you, ken? >> my response to that and i appreciate it is that once a superintendent is selected, their work is to do the work in the office to do and the work in the office for the county superintendent to fill the contracts that we have. the county board, i don't know that this is an issue with the county board with one way or the other. there is many things that the county office is involved in. i don't see that this particular issue has raised to the surface with them or how they would be involved in taking this work into consideration for selecting a new county superintendent, but i certainly can't speak for them. they have not given me any inclination on the issues whether or not they are collaborative. >> i will add to that point and i want to share my sadness that you are leaving, ken. we wish you the best and appreciate all the work that you have done on our behalf. i wonder if it's not too late to think about the position of the agent. i'm talking to deputy superintendent glen price. when this collaborative was established and there is a question in my mind that is a little convoluted with how it works. an rfp was put out to all counties. there were a number of counties that replied. riverside because of ken's leadership on this, i think it was low bid, perhaps 1% and it looked like a good deal at the time. the total budget at ccee has gone up dramatically which means that 1% yield a lot more money than it did to begin with. in any event. i think if the contract is up in march, it might behoove us as part of the bigger conversation as to what the expansion should look like and what the organization should look like to us and should we do a new rfp and of course riverside is welcome to apply as well as other counties and in terms of what it would be. the department of finance is not a fan of indirect cost. they want the money spent on direct services through ccee. so, whoever if we were to reopen this would apply and seek an indirect that looks like it might be excessive and i use that term meaning fully to the department of finance we would have a struggle with that and they would have to approve our service plan. i think there is a lot to consider here and not to the least to say do we need to reopen the rfp. and we look at the contracts and the board approves the contract. there are lots of layers to make sure that we are going to have to have substantive conversations. i guess when we come back in february in talking about the expansion plan, you come forward with a recommendation about what makes sense going forward relative to the fiscal agent. >> right. >> any other comments? >> with the timeline, i guess you can always extend the timeline. because february to march is short. so i guess we can always get an extension. >> does that work, to me or glen? >> yes. >> great. thank you. >> thanks for the opportunity to speak. glen price, superintendent, california department of education. there was an extension to the rfp. all respondents to the rfp were asked to respond to an rfp indicated that the max cap would be the 1%. also part of that process $100,000 allocated for start up cost for the entity that would become the fiscal agent for the contract. in regards to the turn around time, as a couple of wrinkles that we can dive more into. the $10 million original allocation, the 10.1 covers that and the 5.6 going on. it would do good for the department to do a no cost extension for march 17th and one possibility for you to then consider an rfp process for the additional work going forward. i don't know if you are following me on that, but that's one alternative that you might have. >> okay, thanks. >> on the issue of direct -- or indirect, do you want to cite some examples or indicate if there is a need for clarity. >> my understanding of direct and indirect cost rates, those are rates that all county offices in california have an approved rate and many organizations have audited indirect rates. indirect are to cover those cost that are not otherwise expensed as basic operation, keeping the lights on and paying for those things that you can't expense in a way. the other side of the contract, the idea that those funds are for operating the contract. cutting the checks, making the reports back to the department of education and those types of items. whereas direct cost would be if ccee is asking the county office of education to provide some type of service that is over and beyond that core operation of the contract. that would be a direct cost. understanding that contract language is the contract provides the opportunity for the california collaborative for educational excellence if there is an agreement an other types of services that could be provided above and beyond the indirect cost. an example of that might be and i don't know what's been asked of the riverside county office but if the ccee asked a specialist to go out to a remote location to assist with support, that would be a service that would not be typically serves -- serviced as part of an indirect cost. >> okay. any other questions or comments? you can obviously work with glen about the timing on the contract extension if we needed to do that. any public comment on item 13? okay. seeing none. this is not an action item. i will move to our final item, item 14. this is general public comment. this is any comment invited on any matter not on the agenda? is there any public comment. it's very quiet today. okay. seeing none, i would remind everybody that our next meeting is thursday, february 2, 2017, at 9:00 at the department of education. and once again i express my appreciation to san francisco unified and the board for their hospitality. i appreciate being here. with that, our meeting is adjourned. happy holidays! [ meeting is adjourned ]

Related Keywords

Fremont , California , United States , Berkeley , Central Basin , Merced County , Marin County , Redding , Riverside , Central Valley , Sacramento , San Diego , Spain , Riverside County , Ventura County , San Francisco , America , Spanish , Linda Wong , Michael Watkins , James Baca , Los Angeles , Hetch Hetchy , Carl Cohn , Sauls Alito , Deborah Newman , Jason Willis ,