• All meetings of the Governing Board are open to the general public with the exception of Closed Sessions, which are held to consider those items specifically exempt under the Ralph M. Brown Act.  
• In compliance with the American With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to access the Board meeting room or to otherwise participate at this meeting, including auxiliary aides or services, please contact  the Superintendent's Office at (408) 423-2006.  Notification at least three (3) days prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangement to ensure accessibility to the Board meeting.
• Agenda materials distributed less than 72 hours before a Board meeting can be inspected at the Superintendent' Office, 1889 Lawrence Rd., Santa Clara.
• Be advised that the Board may act upon and discuss any item on the agenda, including items which are not specifically identified as action items, except Items from the Public, Reports from Student Board Representatives, Union Presidents, and Superintendent, and Items from the Board Staff.

DATE:                            February 27, 2018

TYPE OF AGENDA ITEM: ACTION           

TO:                                       Board of Trustees

FROM:                Stanley Rose III, Ed. D., Superintendent

PREPARED BY:        Corinne Sanfilippo, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent and Board of Education

SUBJECT:        Discussion and Approval of the Placement of a Potential General Obligation Bond on either the June 2018 Election Ballot or the November 2018 Election Ballot

ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY:

Since last year, staff has been working under the assumption that the District will be proposing a general obligation bond measure during 2018.  Our election date options are either the June 5 ballot or the November 6 ballot.

There are many considerations as to the best time for our community to consider a bond measure, and I encourage the Board of Trustees to have another discussion of community considerations that relate to the timing of the proposed general obligation bond measure.  It would be hard to expect our community, operating without the detailed knowledge the Board has, to be fully supportive of a voter initiative if the Board is unable to achieve consensus.  That is the purpose of this item.

In addition to community considerations, there is an important technical consideration that should be included in the discussion.  This has already been discussed with respect to the tracking poll testing a different ballot question than our initial public opinion research.  The reason for the different ballot question was that a new statute passed late last year requiring some additional information be included for measures affecting taxes.

The currently required language can be accurately included for parcel tax measures, but doesn’t really fit what a general obligation measure is, and runs somewhat counter to the purpose and detail of the Tax Rate Statement required for every school district general obligation bond measure which is also included in the voter ballot materials.  Thus, we understand that “fix-it” legislation is being pursued on an urgency basis, which may pass prior to the deadlines related to putting a June bond measure forward.

Because staff thought the Board might be comfortable with a June ballot measure except for concern about the possibility of our ballot question including confusing and misleading information which would fail to reflect our values of integrity and fiscal responsibility, staff has worked closely with legal counsel to develop a process to respond to this concern.

The following process allows for the Board to authorize a June election with a ballot question consistent with current law, but would allow the Superintendent discretion to improve the ballot question in response to the urgency legislation under consideration.  Here’s the proposed process:

1. Urgency legislation approved prior to March 9 – the ballot question would be improved and the Superintendent would submit an updated Resolution to the County to be on the June ballot;
2. Urgency legislation approved after March 9 but by March 16 – the ballot question would be improved and the Superintendent would request the County accept a substitute Resolution in place of the already submitted original Resolution to the County;
3. Urgency legislation not approved by March 16 (or any leeway offered by the County)—on March 22, the Board would be asked to rescind the Resolution that may be approved tonight and delivered to the County by March 9, and thus would not be on the June ballot.

While staff has developed this flexible process, we also understand that the complexity of it may not fit how the Board would like to proceed.

The purpose of this agenda item is for the Board of Trustees to review the pros and cons of placing a General Obligation Bond on the June 2018 Election Ballot or wait and place it on the November 2018 Election Ballot.  Attached to this item are the results from the recent polling provided by True North Research.  The Board has a difficult decision to make, and as expressed by our consultants, there is no “right answer.” 

At this point, we have the best information we can have regarding a June measure.  Were we to wait until November, of course, more current public opinion research might be desired, and the Board would need to act by early August to notify the County that we wish to be on the November ballot.

Should the Board determine that a November election date is preferred, because there would be more time for community engagement prior to the election, the Superintendent recommends the Board direct staff to create and implement an informational campaign with a budget up to $500,000 to reach the community concerning the successes and needs of our district.

Potential fiscal impact of $500,000 to the General Fund

DATE:                                    February 27, 2018                                           

ITEM TYPE:                           ACTION

TO:                                        Stanley Rose III, Ed.D., Superintendent

FROM:                                  Mark Allgire, Chief Business Official

SUBJECT:                             Review and Approval of a Potential General Obligation Bond Election by Way of Board Resolution No. 18-05 with Exhibits.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY:

PURPOSE:

                The purpose of this agenda item is for the Board to review and approve a resolution necessary to call a General Obligation Bond election to be held on June 5, 2018. 

BACKGROUND:

Resolution No. 18-05 is presented for Board review and approval.  This Resolution along with Exhibits is required for the Board to call a General Obligation Bond election on June 5, 2018.  A draft of this Resolution was presented for review and discussion at the
February 8, 2018 meeting. 

Over the last 21 years, District voters have successfully passed four prior bond measures.  Effective just this calendar year, the requirements for the 75-word ballot question were changed in a way that has caused confusion, and it appears these new requirements were inadvertently applied to bond measures rather than just parcel tax measures.  There’s a “fix-it” being worked on in Sacramento, which may possibly pass as urgency legislation.  If this occurs prior to the March 9 deadline for submission of the Resolution to the County to allow for the District’s measure to be included on the June Ballot (or if an urgency measure passes in time for the County to accept a substitute resolution), it is recommended that the Resolution be modified by the Superintendent for clarity (with language similar to past measures) and that any such changes be submitted to the Board for ratification at the earliest opportunity following March 9.  Consistent with this approach, Resolution No. 18-05 includes at paragraph 15, a delegation of authority to the Superintendent authorizing the Superintendent to draft modifications to the Resolution in keeping with its intent and purpose.

In addition to Resolution 18-05, attached hereto is an example of what we believe the ballot statement might look like, based on our current understanding of the “fix it” legislation, to replace the current Exhibit A and B ballot statement in the resolution.

                Addison Covert of Parker & Covert will be available to answer questions.

DATE:                      February 27, 2018

TYPE OF AGENDA ITEM: Planning

TO:                    Board of Trustees            

FROM:                              Stanley Rose III Ed.D., Superintendent

PREPARED BY:              Corinne Sanfilippo, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent and Board of Trustees

SUBJECT:                          Resolution #18-06, Calling for Full and Fair Funding of California’s Public Schools

ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY:

California ranks 45^th nationally in the percentage of taxable income spent on education, 41^st in per-pupil funding, 45^th in pupil-teacher ratios and 48^th in pupil-staff ratios.  K-12 school funding has not substantially increased, on an inflation-adjusted basis for more than a decade. California trails the average of the top 10 states by almost $7,000 in per-pupil funding. If California is to close the achievement gap and create a public school system that offers consistently high levels of education, the State must provide schools with the resources to meet the needs of their specific populations.