The Presiding Officer will call the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. before the Board Recesses to Closed Session.  The Regular Meeting will convene by 7:00 p.m. 

The Board may recess into Closed Session before or after the public meeting under the authority of the Brown Act (including but not limited to Government Code section 54954.5, 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957, 54957.6, as well as Education Code section 35146).  Under Government Code section 54954.3, members of the public may address the board on an item on the Closed Session agenda, before Closed Session.

Board members and the Superintendent are given the opportunity to address any issue.  

To: BUSD Board of Education

From: Brent Stephens, Superintendent

Date: July 1, 2020

RE: Approval of Employment Contract, Associate Superintendent

The Superintendent requests that the Board of Education approve the employment contract for Ms. Baje Thiara for the position of Associate Superintendent, Educational Services for the 2020-2021 school year.

To: BUSD Board of Education

From: Brent Stephens, Superintendent

Date: July 1, 2020

RE: Approval of Employment Contract,Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources

The Superintendent requests that the Board of Education approve the employment contract for Ms. Samantha Tobias-Espinosa for the position of Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources for the 2020-2021 school year.

To: BUSD Board of Education

From: Brent Stephens, Superintendent

Date: July 1, 2020

RE: Approval of Employment Contract, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services

The Superintendent requests that the Board of Education approve the employment contract for Ms. Pauline Follansbee for the position of Assistant Superintendent, Business Services for the 2020-2022 school year.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO: Brent Stephens, Ed. D, Superintendent 
FROM: John Calise, Executive Director of Facilities
DATE: July 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution 20-070 - Authorization for Public Utility Easement (PUE) at BUSD Transportation Facility 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

On December 17, 2018, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) approved a grant application submitted by BUSD’s transportation manager Sheila Collier to provide eight electric buses to the Berkeley Unified School District.  Since that time, the Facilities Department has been working with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to provide and install the necessary electrical infrastructure from the transmission lines to the new switchgear and service provided and installed by BUSD.  The Public Use Easement (PUE) is the last requirement by the utility provider to provide the necessary infrastructure.  In March of 2020 the design for the infrastructure to be installed by BUSD was approved by the City of Berkeley and the project was put out to public Bid.  This project was awarded on May 6, 2020 by the BUSD Governing Board and the contractor has mobilized on the site to perform the necessary “Behind the Meter (BtM)” construction work.

Approval of this resolution will allow the Governing Board to hold a public hearing on July 15, 2020 at 8 pm to grant the right of a Public Utility Easement (PUE) to the utility provider (PG&E) as required to complete this project.  

FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal implications to this resolution

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of resolution 20-070 to hold a public hearing at the scheduled Board meeting on July 15, 2020 at 8 pm.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:                 Brent Stephens, Ed.D, Superintendent
FROM:           Pauline Follansbee, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
DATE:            July 1, 2020
SUBJECT:     District Insurance Premiums and Broker Fees for FY 2020-21

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

California Public Entity Insurance Authority Excess Workers Compensation Program (CSAC-EIA) soon to be PRISM

The District became self-insured for workers compensation on January 1, 2004.  At that time, the District solicited quotes for "excess insurance" at a self-insured retention (SIR) level of $250,000.  CSAC-EIA, a joint powers authority of cities, counties and special districts provides excess worker’s compensation insurance in excess of $250,000.

The premium deposit for CSAC-EIA services for coverage period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 is $300,637 which represents a $26,000 decrease from last year’s premium of $326,500.

Staff is satisfied with the services provided by CSAC-EIA and is requesting approval to continue their contract.

POLICY/CODE:
Labor Code Sections 3700 to 3705

FISCAL IMPACT:
The impact for Fiscal Year 2020-21 is $300,637.  As compared to prior year 2019-20 of $326,500.00 within the Self Insurance Fund.   

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO: Brent Stephens, Ed. D., Superintendent
FROM: Pauline Follansbee, Asst. Superintendent of Business Services
DATE: July 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Approval of Contracts/Purchase Orders for Services   Contracts 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The District contracts with consultants or independent contractors who can provide valuable and necessary specialized services not normally required on a continuing basis. The following contract services are requested. Expenditures are within budget.

1. Neogov to provide paperless onboarding services utilized by the Human Resources Department for the period from 7/1/20 – 6/30/21. The cost will not exceed $14,000. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Samantha Tobias-Espinosa. 

2. Rudy’s Commercial Refrigeration to provide repair services to Nutrition Services for 2020-21 SY.  The cost will not exceed $30,000.  To be paid from the Cafeteria Fund.  Requested by Bonnie Christensen.

3. Harris School Solutions to provide annual maintenance to Nutrition Services for 2020-21 SY.  The cost will not exceed $28,882.41. To be paid from the Cafeteria Fund.  Requested by Bonnie Christensen.

4. Inflow Communication to provide support for district-wide phone system for the 2020-21 SY. The cost will not exceed $33,331.67. To be paid from General Fund. Requested by Jay Nitschke.

5. Hydropoint to provide installation of new SMART irrigation at three District sites and to provide monitoring services for all sites using SMART irrigation, for the Maintenance Department for the 2020-21 SY. The cost will not exceed $20,000. To be paid from Measure H. Requested by Steve Collins.

6. Zearn to provide K-5 math software for the Ed Services Department for the 2020-21 SY. The cost will not exceed $27,500. To be paid from Instructional Materials Fund. Requested by Baje Thiara.

7. IXL to provide middle school online math instructional learning for the Ed Services Department for the 2020-21 SY. The cost will not exceed $15,400. To be paid from Instructional Materials Fund. Requested by Baje Thiara.

8. Flocabulary to provide K-12 reading instructional materials for the Ed Services Department for the 2020-21 Sy. The cost will not exceed $28,500. To be paid from Instructional Materials Fund. Requested by Baje Thiara.

POLICY/CODE:
Public Contract Code: 20111
Board Policy 3310

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the contracts with Consultants or Independent Contractors as submitted.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO: Board of Education
FROM: Jay Nitschke, Director of Technology 
DATE: July 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Approve expenditures for IlluminateEd

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The district has used Illuminate DnA for 10 years and adopted ISI as its StUdent Information System four years ago. This document requests approval of expenses for 2020-21. The district will be selecting a new Student Information System (SI) to replace the ISI early in the 2020-21 school year.

POLICY CODE:
Public Contract Code: 20111
Board Policy 3310

FISCAL IMPACT:
$154,000 to be paid for by a combination of the General Fund, BSEP HQI and one-time funds.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve 2020-21 expense of $154,000 for district’s license for IlluminateEd ISI, DnA and Educlimber.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO:                Board of Education
FROM:          Jay Nitschke, Director of Technology
DATE:           July 1, 2020
SUBJECT:     Approve expenditures for Harris QSS Finance/HR System

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The district has used Harris QSS Oasis since 2002 for its fiscal/HR system. For 2020-21, those cost eclipsed $100,000 for the first time, requiring a separate Board document. This document requests approval of expenses for 2020-21. The district is investigating moving to the County fiscal/HR solution, Escape, in a future year which will require both a significant ongoing cost increase and one-time cost for training.

POLICY CODE:
Public Contract Code: 20111
Board Policy 3310

FISCAL IMPACT:
$105,000 to be paid for by the General Fund.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve 2020-21 expense of $105,000 for district’s license for Harris School Systems Oasis system.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO:             Brent Stephens, Ed.D., Superintendent   
FROM:          Pauline Follansbee, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
DATE:            July 1, 2020
SUBJECT:     Education Protection Account

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The voters approved temporary sales and income tax increases with Proposition 30 on November 6, 2012, and Proposition 55 on November 8, 2016 which allowed the sales tax increase to expire 2016 while extending the increased income tax rates through 2030 and created an Education Protection Account (EPA) in the State General Fund to receive and disburse the revenues derived from the incremental increase in taxes imposed by Proposition 30 and Proposition 55.

EPA funds represent a portion of our budget’s General Fund revenue that would have been cut if Proposition 55 had not passed, and do not represent increased revenue the District’s 2019-20 budget.  EPA is a reclassification of the state aid portion of the Local Control Funding Formula and is classified as unrestricted revenue

The creation of the EPA benefits cash flow patterns and it also has an accountability component.  Proposition 30 provides that all K-14 local agencies have the sole authority to determine how the funds received from the EPA are spent with the following provisos:

• The spending plan must be approved by the governing board during a public meeting.
• EPA funds cannot be used for the salaries or benefits of administrators or any other administrative costs.
• Each year, the local agency must publish on its website an accounting of how much money was received from the EPA and how the funds were expended.

In addition, there is a requirement for the annual financial audit to include verification that the EPA funds were used as specified by Proposition 55, and the additional cost of the audit would be an allowable expense from the EPA.

If EPA funds are not expended in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 30, civil or criminal penalties could be incurred.  For FY 2020-21 the District is scheduled to receive $6,067,285 in EPA funding which will be used for classroom teacher’s salaries and benefits.

The attached Resolution No. 20-071 details the provisions and requirements of the EPA.

FISCAL IMPACT:
The unrestricted General Fund will receive $6,067,285 in EPA funding that will be used for classroom teacher’s salaries and benefits. 

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:                 Brent Stephens, Ed.D., Superintendent
FROM:           Pauline Follansbee, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
DATE:            July 1, 2020
SUBJECT:     Approval of District Insurance Premiums and Broker Fees for FY 2020-21

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Myer, Stevens & Toohey provides the Districts Student Accident Insurance.

The premium for services for coverage period August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021 is $55,495, which represents a $0 increase from last year’s premium of $55,437.

Staff is satisfied with the services provided by Myers, Stevens & Toohey, and is requesting approval to continue their contract.

FISCAL IMPACT:
The impact for fiscal year 2020-21 is $55,495 within the Self Insurance Fund as compared to $55,437 the prior fiscal year 2019-20.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve insurance premiums and broker cost for Fiscal Year 2020-21

July 1, 2020

At the Board meeting on June 24, 2020, members of the Board of Education consider a resolution on police in BUSD schools. With the approval of the authors of the resolution, the approval of the resolution was postponed until the Board of Education meeting on July 1, 2020.

The Board will vote on this resolution as a consent item this evening.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO:             Board of Education
FROM:         Brent Stephens, Ed.D., Superintendent
DATE:         July 1, 2020
SUBJECT:    Recommendation to Discontinue Names of Jefferson Elementary School and Washington Elementary School 

Background

On June 10, 2020, the Berkeley Unified School Board of Education approved and adopted Resolution No. 20-064 in support of Black Lives Matter, which included a commitment to a renaming process for Jefferson and Washington Elementary Schools, in accordance with BUSD current Board Policy.^[1]

Community Meetings

In keeping with the BUSD name review process, which requires a meeting with families of students enrolled in the school, and with school employees, Town Halls were held for each school. (Due to the current Shelter-in-Place conditions, these were held online.) School families and staff at both Jefferson and Washington Schools were also sent copies of the June 10 Board Resolution and the summary of the process and timeline as provided to the Board on June 17, 2020.

Each school meeting included these components, presented by district staff, appended to this document as Appendix A (Jefferson) and Appendix B (Washington).

?      BUSD Facilities Naming Process & Proposed Timeline

?      History of BUSD Schools & Names

?      Thought Exchange about School Values and Strengths

?      Thought Exchange about Opportunities and Challenges in a Name Change

?      Straw Poll - for, undecided, against the name change

?      Details of Next Steps

?      Q&A, including advice from members of the Sylvia Mendez Naming Committee

Summary of Staff Presentation

In addition to providing an overview of the Board Policy and the name change process, using the 2018 Le Conte/Sylvia Mendez School process as an example, District staff also provided a history of school names in BUSD, noting the earliest schools opened in the late 19th century and for the most part were identified by their location (East, West, San Pablo, Dwight, Rose St, etc).

Later, as Berkeley established itself as a university town and as a possible state capital in the early 1900’s, the location-based school names gave way to Americans of note at the time: historical figures, intellectuals, poets, inventors, naturalists, abolitionists, and presidents. Names included Burbank, Columbus, Edison, Emerson, Franklin, Garfield, Hawthorne, Hillside, Jefferson, John Muir, Le Conte, Lincoln, Longfellow, McKinley, Oxford, University, Washington, Whittier, and Willard.

An interesting fact emerged from the research into school names, which is that in 1907, the name “Jefferson” was selected for the school formerly known as the Rose Street School, not as a first choice, but after other choices were discarded. The first suggestion was “Hawthorne” after Nathaniel Hawthorne, then “Garfield” after the son of President Garfield who happened to be in town that day, and “Bryant” after William Cullen Bryant, a poet and abolitionist. Finally, the Board settled upon “Jefferson” in what was noted as a "compromise" selection. Similarly, the choice of “Washington” in seems to have not been immediate, as it had been considered in the renaming of San Pablo School in 1903, which ultimately became Franklin School instead, and was not used until several years later.

These early choices, of the type popular across the country at the time, appear to have been seen as a standard set of options by those on the School Board, who until 1909 were exclusively men, and until 1961 were also exclusively white. The first school named for a woman, Frances E. Willard (educator and leader in the temperance and suffrage movements), was selected a few years after a woman was elected to the School Board for the first time, upon the amendment of the city charter which enfranchised women to vote and run for office, but only for school board. The first school named for a person of color was named for Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. a few months after his assassination. In that case, the choice had less to do with the dislike of the prior name (Garfield, who was a staunch supporter of abolition) than with the need to make a clear statement to a community during a time when Berkeley was confronting its segregated and unequal schools and about to launch its voluntary desegregation and busing plan.

Just as the early school location-based names were replaced or discontinued in the first fifty years of use, succeeding generations have sought to draw upon the limited resource of school names to assert contemporary community values, identity and aspirations. The late 19th century and early 20th century choices such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Columbus were likely chosen to demonstrate that Berkeley was an American city and a possible seat of state government, while names such as Emerson, John Muir, Longfellow, Whittier, Willard and Burbank signaled that Berkeley is a university town with intellectual and progressive intentions. School names such as Garfield, Lincoln and McKinley honored leadership in government as well as sacrifice; several generations later, the names King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, and Sylvia Mendez were chosen to celebrate leadership in civil rights and also commemorate sacrifice.

Jefferson School and Community

As we enter into a new round of naming, an awareness of our own moment in history, and the importance of choices that will be enduring and meaningful, was very much on the minds of Town Hall participants.

Reflecting upon the Board Resolution and the proposal for a name change, Jefferson School meeting participants were asked to share their views of their community’s characteristics and strengths, before reflecting upon reasons to keep or change the name “Jefferson” for the school. There was high agreement among the 41 respondents on descriptions of a "welcoming, diverse and inclusive community" where members feel “seen and appreciated”, with a “commitment to equity, activism, critical thinking and respect”, and teachers who are “child-focused, dedicated to supporting all students.”

Terms such as “inclusivity,” “values” and “reflect” came up again as respondents expressed reasons to change the name. One of the top-rated thoughts was that “Black families and children should not have to enter the school of a slave owner: Respect and inclusivity.” There was enthusiasm about engaging children in a “positive example of change and consensus” that could be a “way to grow as a community.” Top concerns included the “time and attention needed” to accomplish this, “some people will want more civil rights leaders, others will want role models from other walks of life, can we agree?” and whether “the people who wanted 'Sequoia' may continue to insist that's the only possible name,” as that was the top choice in a 2005 attempt to rename the school.

Washington School and Community

At the Washington School meeting, words such as “inclusivity”,  “diversity”, “justice” and “caring” came up frequently among 39 respondents,  as “our students are inclusive; they stand up for each other,” and “a strong focus on social justice, core values of equity and belonging,” and “caring teachers who value diversity.”

When asked about challenges and opportunities in a name change, all but one respondent strongly supported a name change, with statements such as “changing the name would show unity and respect for our families,” and “the name can reflect our values and unique qualities.” Concerns included how to ensure that the voices of people of color would be centered and upheld during the name change discussions, that the name change not be simply an act of “performative allyship,” and that it was important to do more in a “commitment to anti-racism.”

Recommendation

If a school is named after an individual, AR 7310 requires a review of the individual’s contributions on the whole and “in light of the Berkeley community’s values and contemporary view on history.”

The Board Resolution states:

“Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and a Framer of the Constitution, was nonetheless an unrepentant slaveholder whose wealth was built on the labor of the enslaved, and who withheld his espoused values of liberty and equality from the hundreds of people of African descent he held and sold into bondage, whose descendants continue to suffer unbearable injustices in a country that has yet to live up to the promise of the Constitution, and Washington, to whose selfless service to a new nation this country is forever indebted, nonetheless profited from the enslaved labor of hundreds of human beings, signed the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act, and relentlessly pursued the many enslaved people who attempted to escape bondage.”

In keeping with the values expressed in the Resolution and in accordance with District policy and regulation, I am recommending that the School Board discontinue the use of the names “Jefferson Elementary School” and “Washington Elementary School,” and that we work toward determining a new name for each school.

In current national discussions of monuments and historical names, one issue raised has been that of "erasing history", and a similar objection might be raised to the Jefferson and Washington renaming. While we certainly recognize the extraordinary contributions of Jefferson and Washington to foundational aspirations of our democracy, at the same time we do not yield to the temptation to sweep aside the inexcusable injustice of holding hundreds of people in bondage while proclaiming that all men are created equal.

This renaming is not meant to, and cannot, erase our past. Instead, it is a reflection of our community's desire to confront the contradictions in our nation’s history, question our failures as a nation and even as a school district, align with our values and spur us to live up to our promises. We know that renaming is insufficient to address the structural inequities in our educational system. This name change must be only one small step toward making good on the promise of equity and equality.

Next Steps If the Board Votes to Discontinue the School Names

The recommendation of the Superintendent and Advisory Committees are intended to inform the Board’s decision-making process. The decision to discontinue a school’s name rests exclusively with the School Board, as does the choice of a new name.

If the Board agrees that the name should be discontinued, the existing name continues as a placeholder, for purposes of reference and school systems, until the Board determines a new name. If the Board votes to discontinue the names of either Jefferson or Washington Schools, or both, I would then initiate the further steps, as described in AR 7310, with the goal of having the Board vote on new names during the 2020-21 school year.  We propose to begin with Jefferson School this fall, followed by Washington School in the spring, as outlined in the timeline provided at the June 17 2020 Board Meeting.

The first step, according to AR 7310, is to form an Advisory Committee to assist in soliciting and reviewing potential new names for the school. The Committee will organize at least three community meetings. The first would be to announce, explain, and discuss the naming process and timeline. If this recommendation is approved tonight, that first meeting for Jefferson School would probably be held in late July 2020. The second meeting would probably take place in August, to begin to solicit potential new names, and the third, probably in September, would be designed to receive feedback on potential names. By October the Jefferson School community would be involved in learning about and discussing top choices, and we could potentially bring a proposal to the Board for a decision in November, with implementation over the Winter Break. At that point, the Washington School process could begin, to be completed by the end of the school year.

If the Board gives direction for a change of name, staff and Advisory Committee members will support a thoughtful and inclusive process toward the proposal of new school names. Particularly in light of the success of the renaming process for Sylvia Mendez School, we are confident that we can embark on processes for renaming that will reflect, unite and inspire our diverse and vibrant community.

POLICY/CODE:
BUSD Board Policy 7310

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Recommendation to Discontinue the Names of Jefferson and Washington Elementary Schools and direct staff to proceed with the renaming process of Jefferson School, followed by the renaming process of Washington School, in accordance with BP and AR 7310.

^[1]  (BP) and Administrative Regulation (AR) 7310, available at www.berkeleyschools.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Facilities-BP-and-AR-7310.pdf)

To:  BUSD Board of Education

From: Brent Stephens, Superintendent

Date:  July 1, 2020

Re:  Fall Planning Update

In this presentation and discussion, BUSD staff will update the Board of Education on recent developments related to the 2020-2021 school year, including Assembly Bill 77, updated guidance from the City of Berkeley about on-campus risk reduction practices, human resources procedures, and draft school models for on-campus and distance learning.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

TO: Brent Stephens, Ed. D, Superintendent 
FROM: John Calise, Executive Director of Facilities
DATE: July 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Partial Bond Implementation Schedule-Longfellow Middle School 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On June 24, 2020, the Facilities Subcommittee voted to recommend to the full Board a plan to implement several short-term but impactful projects at Longfellow Middle school that could be completed over the next 12-24 months.  These projects are a direct result of the outreach that was done with the Longfellow community as well as the entire BUSD community during the Facilities Master Planning process along with recent conversations from with the Longfellow community and the Facilities Subcommittee. 

Approval of this project list will allow staff to begin the processes necessary to ensure completion of these projects within about 12-24 months.  Prioritizing these projects and adding them to the Measure G project list will also require that the Board re-allocate funds from other planned projects to fund these projects.  The Facilities Subcommittee that staff return to the Board in the fall with a proposal for re-allocations in the Measure G plan that will allow funding for the projects on this list.  At that time, the Board will be asked to approve the entire Measure G plan. 

The proposed short-term, impactful Longfellow Middle School projects include the following:

1. New multi-sport turf field with improved drainage, a delineated jogging track, and new hardcourts

2. New wrought iron fencing with concrete separation wall

3. New wrought iron gates at the entry points of the campus

4. Auditorium modernization

5. Garden update with outdoor learning environment

6. Digital marquee at the campus Entry on Derby Street (This to be further vetted with the new Administration and the LFMS community as this was a request from previous administration only)

Each of the projects listed above will have different planning, design and approval processes.  Once the design teams are chosen for each of these projects, the Board will be updated with accurate timelines along with a more in-depth analysis of project costs. 

The Facilities Subcommittee also asked staff to review the cost and feasibility of installing lockers at Longfellow, and report back in the fall with this information (with the understanding that whether installing lockers is a priority of the Longfellow staff and community is not currently clear).

FISCAL IMPACT:
Estimated costs to include all construction and program costs is $9,845,000.  At this time, this estimate is a cumulative total of conceptual pricing.  As the projects are further developed and move into conceptual design, an updated budget will be presented to the Board.  All costs of these projects will be contained within Measure G.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the project list for Longfellow Middle School with direction to begin planning, design, and approval processes for each item on the list.

BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TO: Berkeley Unified School District Board of Education
FROM: Margaret R. Prinzing
DATE: July 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Implementation of Berkeley Measure YI 

INTRODUCTION 

In November 2016, Berkeley voters approved Measure Y1 to authorize the City Council to pass an ordinance allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in school board elections if certain criteria are met, including that voting systems and procedures are technically ready for youth voting. The Alameda County Registrar of voters has recently identified an issue with its voting system that will preclude 16 and 17 year-olds from voting in the November 2020 election. Nevertheless, the Registrar has stated that a new version of that voting system may be available within the next year or so that could enable youth voting in future elections. This Memorandum summarizes the steps that are necessary in order to implement Measure Y1 in Berkeley; the steps that have been taken to date; and the remaining steps that must be taken in order to make Berkeley one of the first cities in the nation, and perhaps the first city in California, to allow voting in school board elections by 16 and 17 year-olds. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Measure Y1 

On November 8, 2016, more than 70% of Berkeley voters approved Measure Y1 to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote for members of the Berkeley Unified School District Board of Education. More specifically, Measure Y1 amended the Berkeley City Charter to authorize the City Council to adopt an ordinance granting persons aged 16 and 17 years-old, who would otherwise be eligible to vote under state law (referred to here as “YI voters”), to vote for members of the Berkeley Unified School District Board of Education. The Council could not adopt such an ordinance unless the following conditions were met:

(1) No City funds could be used for any expenses related to the ordinance; 

(2) The equipment, software, systems, and procedures for voter registration and voting would have to be technically ready to handle voting by Y1 voters; 

(3) Youth voting could not prevent consolidation of municipal elections with county elections; and 

(4) Youth voting could not result in any increased election costs to the City. 

The City anticipated that the adoption of any ordinance allowing voting by 16 and 17 year-olds would be preceded by an agreement between the City, the County Registrar of Voters, and the School District establishing the terms and conditions under which affected elections would be held. 

Efforts to Implement Measure Y1 

In August 2018, a group of interested parties including then-current School Board member Josh Daniels and student leaders supporting Measure Y1 met with Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis and Deputy Registrar Cynthia Cornejo to begin discussions about implementing Measure Y1. The Registrar identified a long list of issues that his office would have to resolve in order to determine whether the County could be technically ready to handle voting by Y1 voters. For example, the Registrar explained that his office would have to determine how to track separate voter registration processes for standard voters and Y1 voters; how to track ballots prepared for and cast by YI voters; and how to ensure that the voting process for Y1 voters complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

In March 2019, BUSD retained this firm, now known as Olson Remcho, to continue working with the School Board and the Alameda County Registrar’s Office on a plan to implement Measure Y1. 

Because Berkeley is the first city in the State of California to seek to expand voting to 16 and 17 year-olds, there are no existing precedents to demonstrate how to implement successful elections that include both standard voters and young voters. Nevertheless, San Francisco has successfully implemented voting for non-citizens in school board elections beginning in November 2018. As a consequence, our first priority was to interview John Arntz, the Director of the San Francisco Department of Elections, to determine how his Department was able to successfully implement non-citizen voting. Although there are different challenges to overcome to provide for non-citizen voting and youth voting, and there are differences between the San Francisco and Alameda County voting systems and processes, Mr. Arntz was able to provide some basic information about how Alameda County might be able to successfully implement Measure Y1. 

We next held a series of additional meetings with Mr. Dupuis and Ms. Cornejo in August, September, and December 2019 to discuss how to incorporate Y1 voters into each step of the voter registration, voting, and counting processes. At each meeting, including the earlier August 2018 meeting, Mr. Dupuis and Ms. Cornejo identified various challenges for discussion, and they then worked to overcome those challenges by the next meeting. For example, the County provides voting machines to make voting accessible for voters with disabilities. One of the earliest challenges they identified was whether those machines could accommodate the separate ballots that would be required for Y1 voters. This was a technical issue concerning whether the machines had the capacity to offer separate ballots at the same election. Mr. Dupuis and Ms. Cornejo were able to eventually confirm that the machines had the necessary capacity. 

At the December 2019 meeting, however, Mr. Dupuis and Ms. Cornejo identified a problem that will prevent the Registrar’s office from implementing Measure Y1 in time for the November 2020 election. The problem is a technical issue relating to the system Alameda County uses to track voters – the Data Information Management System, or “DIMS.” Simply put, the current version of DIMS will not allow the Registrar’s office to create a separate database for YI voters within DIMS. This problem did not arise when San Francisco implemented non-citizen voting because San Francisco uses a different system to track voters which allows for the creation of a separate database. 

As background, DIMS performs many critical functions like tracking which voters are registered to vote, and tracking which voters have voted in a particular election to ensure no voter votes more than once. The Registrar’s office needs to be able to consider all voters for some functions, including Y1 voters. For example, it needs to be able to determine how many voters are within each voting precinct to ensure each precinct has enough resources to serve all voters within that precinct. At the same time, the Registrar’s office needs to be able to identify Y1 voters and treat them separately for other functions. For example, it needs to ensure that Y1 voters receive ballots that only allow them to cast votes for school board candidates. 

According to the Registrar’s office, DIMS currently does not have the capacity to allow for the creation of a separate database for Y1 voters within DIMS. DIMS is, however, developing a new system, and DIMS is working to incorporate this functionality into that new system. Mr. Dupuis stated in December 2019 that he expected DIMS to have that capacity within one to two years. 

Mr. Dupuis cautions that it remains to be seen whether DIMS will successfully incorporate this new functionality into its new system, and what costs or other technical issues may be associated with Alameda County acquiring that new functionality. Nevertheless, Mr. Dupuis has stated that if and when this issue is resolved, it will be technically feasible for the Registrar’s office to implement Measure Y1.

NEXT STEPS 

We are currently trying to learn more about when DIMS will be prepared to offer this new functionality. The Registrar’s office has informed us that DIMS will have additional information available on this issue soon, which the Registrar’s office will provide to us. 

We will next determine whether the Registrar’s office will be able to acquire and use this functionality to implement Measure Y1, and whether the implementation process meets Measure Y1’s other criteria, including that youth voting may not result in any increased election costs to the City. We will then seek to negotiate an agreement between the City, the County Registrar of Voters, and the School District establishing the terms and conditions under which affected elections would be held. Finally, the City Council will have to consider whether to adopt an ordinance allowing the youth voting that Measure Y1 authorized.