SRCS Board Meeting Agenda Analysis – 9/27/2023


Santa Rosa City Schools

September 27, 2023

4:00 p.m. – Closed Session 

6:00 p.m. – Open Session

Hybrid: Zoom/Santa Rosa City Hall Council Chambers (100 Santa Rosa Ave.)

*** streamed ***

A live link will be posted on the SRCS website (link).

Please take time to review the following abbreviated version of the agenda. Click here to see the entire agenda. It has live links on many items with more information. If you want to comment to the board about any upcoming items, email Please CC on your comments.

Closed Session Items: 

A.1. Public Comment On Closed Session Agenda Items To comment, email Melanie Martin at

B.1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Title of employee being reviewed: Superintendent, Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Vice Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors, Coordinators)

B.2. Conference With Labor Negotiator (Name of designated rep attending: Dr. Vicki Zands (SRCS); name of organization: SRTA/CSEA

B.3. Conference With Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Number of potential cases: 3)

B.4. Student Expulsions (Case No: 2023/24-01)


C.9. Public Comment on Non Agenda Items

SRTA members are invited to complete ‘blue cards’ in person. Online comments have been suspended. Please be prepared to observe the recent practice of a two minute limit. Only items not on the agenda are addressed at this time.

Comments are requested at the board meeting to bring a member’s perspective and share real experiences of the impact of district policies and practices. There is an invitation for comments on specific items during each item, so they need to be held until then.

Please commit to watching or attending at least one board meeting this year, and speaking to an agenda item that impacts you or your students. Speakers are most impactful when they are well spoken, composed and reasonable.


D.6. Safety Report


The staff of Herbert Slater Middle School eloquently shared concerns with the board during public comments at the last meeting. There are a handful of students on many sites that need more resources and assistance than our comprehensive sites are able to provide. The result negatively impacts the entire student body. There is a need for alternative student placements where students can have staff dedicated to help them with their physical, mental, emotional and academic needs, restoring them so they can return to achieve success at our comprehensive sites. 


SRCS attempted to address the need for more adults on campus. EdJoin currently has 10 openings for Campus Supervisors at $18.79 per hour, 9 Restorative Response Specialists at $25.27 per hour, 11 Family Engagement Facilitators, 1 Student Advisor at $21.25 and 2 Student Engagement Activity Workers at $21.78 per hour. While these 33 open positions show positive intention, sites are still short of necessary adults. Having a visiting district or SCOE administrator on site is a nice gesture, but it is far short of having someone on campus who can become part of the culture and build relationships with students to help impact change. As these positions remain open, what else can be done to get more adults on campus?


Members are concerned about student affiliations with gangs and their negative influence on the level of safety on our campuses. 

BP 5136 which addresses Gangs, has been returned to GAMUT. It is included below. Members might want to also review BP 5132 Dressing and Grooming. (AR 5132 is limited to common dress agreements.)

What is the plan to implement training to help staff to identify gangs and gang symbols, recognize early manifestations of disruptive activities, and respond appropriately to gang behavior? Staff also wants to know the plan for becoming informed about conflict management techniques and alerted to intervention measures and community resources per BP 5136.

Sites are reporting students wearing accessories to signal gang affiliation, and using whistling to intimidate students and staff. Did the recent administrator training include steps to deter this, as called for in the Board Policy?

Board Policy 5136:

The Board of Education desires to keep district schools free from the threats or harmful influence of any groups or gangs which exhibit drug use, violence, or disruptive behavior. The Superintendent or designee shall take steps to deter gang intimidation of students and staff and confrontations between members of different gangs. He/she shall exchange information and establish mutually supportive efforts with local law enforcement authorities, including notifying the Santa Rosa Police Department of any gang-related activities on or adjacent to school campuses. In addition, he/she shall participate in developing and implementing interagency coordination strategies to deter gang-related activities.

The Superintendent or designee shall provide inservice training which helps staff to identify gangs and gang symbols, recognize early manifestations of disruptive activities, and respond appropriately to gang behavior. Staff shall be informed about conflict management techniques and alerted to intervention measures and community resources.

Pursuant to Education Code 35183(b), the Board hereby prohibits district students from wearing gang-related apparel, based on its determination that this policy is necessary for the health and safety of the school environment.

To further discourage the influence of gangs, the Superintendent or designee shall ensure that school rules of conduct and any school dress code prohibiting gang-related apparel are enforced consistently. If a student exhibits signs of gang affiliation, including wearing, carrying, or displaying gang regalia or making gang-related gestures, staff shall so inform the parent/guardian and the student may be subject to disciplinary action.

Administrative Regulation 5136:

1. Definition of a Gang

For purposes of this policy, a gang is defined as two or more people who form an allegiance for a common purpose and engage, individually or collectively, in acts which may be threatening or criminal, and which may include such behaviors as intimidation, threats, and violence.

2. Gang-Related Material and Behavior Which is Prohibited – Grades 4-12

a. Any article of clothing, paraphernalia, accessories, and graffiti which violates the school dress code and/or school safety plan is prohibited. When developing these plans and/or dress codes, school officials shall implement gang-related restrictions only after determining that there is evidence of gang presence at the specific school site, and a threat of disruption from that presence and must take into consideration information obtained from appropriate community agencies and resources, as well as parent groups and school site councils.

b. Any gang-related gesture, posturing, speech or other behavior which intimidates, poses a threat to others, causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause physical harm to others, or which may disrupt the educational process is prohibited.

c. Any student in violation of 2.a. or 2.b. above, shall be referred to the principal or designee for appropriate action as follows:

(1) When violations of 2.a. involving clothing, paraphernalia, accessories, and/or graffiti occur, the specific items will be removed or covered as appropriate. The student and parent(s)/guardian(s) shall be informed of the reasons for such action and of the provisions of this regulation, and warned that the violation should not reoccur. This does not preclude the school official’s prerogative to suspend the student, arrange a parent conference or to take other appropriate disciplinary action, which may include reporting to the police.

(2) When violations of 2.b. involving related gestures, posturing, speech, or other behavior which is intimidating, threatening, or which causes, attempts to cause, or threatens to cause physical harm to others, or which may disrupt the educational process occur, the principal or designee shall take appropriate disciplinary action which may include application of the provisions of Education Code 48900.

(3) Repeated violators shall be considered to be a violation of Education Code 48900 and may be dealt with by suspension, referral to an appropriate district hearing and/or expulsion. The school principal or designee shall use his/her discretion in determining the appropriate discipline of repeat offenders, using the discipline guidelines established by the school and district.

d. The principal at each school site shall provide his/her staff training in current gang-related graffiti, signals, apparel, paraphernalia and any other significant gang-related material or information. The District Office shall provide the necessary in-service and resources to site principals and/or their designees to enable them to implement this training. The district and school sites shall also use the resources provided by the Santa Rosa Police Department concerning gangs within the surrounding community, to ensure up-to-date information on gang activity is available and to promote ongoing interagency cooperation to deter gang-related activities.

e. Students and parents/guardians shall be notified and informed at the beginning of each school year of the prohibitions set forth in the school site dress-code and safety plan, and of the consequences and procedures related to violations of same. Any student or parent/guardian who has questions related to any particular clothing, paraphernalia, accessory or a particular type of conduct prohibited by the school site dress-code and safety plan is encouraged to discuss the matter with the site principal or designee.


E.1. (Action) Approval of Resolution Proclaiming October 12, 2023, as Indigenous Peoples’ Day


Press Democrat Article

How To Honor Indigenous Peoples’ Day 2023 (Activities and More)

E.2. (Discussion) Elsie Allen New School Model Update


This discussion item is on the New School Model, which is focused on operationalizing our Graduate Profile by expanding a K-12 dual immersion pathway from Cesar Chavez Language Academy to Elsie Allen High School and expanding the Career Technical Education offerings at Elsie Allen High School. 


It is great to have a chance to hear what is happening with the evolution of EAHS and CCLA.  Here are some highlights gleaned from the prior and current New School board reports and associated questions that may be answered during the presentation.

  • Survey CCLA students to further guide the development of CTE program offerings 

What were the results of this survey? How did that guide action?

  • Establish CTE Advisory Committees for the Public and Community Health and Education CTE programs 

What are the difficulties in establishing these? What support can help with the creation of these?

  • Develop course proposals for Public Safety, Agriculture and new Public and Community Health CTE 

Ag and Healthcare courses were approved by the district for Fall 2023 implementation. How are enrollments in these courses?

The Public and Community Health course looks to be created this year for implementation in Fall 2024.

  • Katie Barr was hired for over 400 hours of planning, marketing, PD, master scheduling, pathway alignment and stakeholder engagement. 

How did this go? Is there evidence that can be shared from this?

  • Develop additional systems to increase WBL experiences for all students including a Career Conference and industry partner orientation.

Was there a Career Conference? How many community partners have been established? Further expansion of  WBL opportunities remains on the list for this year. 

  • Support staff with BCLAD and CTE credentialing

How many staff have these additional credentials? How many staff are interested in adding credentials?

  • Attending Bilingual Education Conferences in Portland (Feb.), Long Beach (Mar.) and Sacramento (June), and visiting SF International High School

Did these site visits happen? What was gained from these sites? What additional sites are visits planned for?

  • Master Scheduling support for Multilingual Learners and DLI expansion

How has the master schedule changed? What effect does this have on students?

  • Hired DLI TOSA 

This person is reported as working on curriculum development and teacher support.


How much are these grants for? Where is the evaluation of progress on the metrics for these?

The DLI grant has indicators of 

  • Increasing Seal of Biliteracy recipients.

What was the baseline? How many students earned their seal last year?

  • Completion of TK-12 dual language immersion pathway for students

What does this entail? How many students are on track for completing this? 

The American Rescue Plan Act Grant listed indicators of

  • Students attending school daily 

Dataquest shows a chronic absenteeism rate for 2021-22 as 56.4%.  What is being found as an effective way to curb truancy?

  • Students participating in school or postsecondary programs

Dataquest shows a 49.4% college going rate for 2020-21. 77% of those enrolled are in a community college program. What is being done to increase this rate?

  • Students on track for graduation

Dataquest shows a five year graduation rate for 2021-22 as 71.2%. Did that improve last year?

College and Career Access Pathways Grant is to establish a  College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) dual enrollment partnership. 

Will this partnership be with SRJC or SSU? What are the plans for this? 

District  LCAP funding for EAHS is reported to have  increased from $625,000 to $800,000 from last year to this year. 

What is the additional $175,000 expected to fund? How is the impact of these district funds and programs being monitored? 

Additionally, Career Technical Education Foundation Sonoma County has granted EAHS $377,383 for professional development, meeting materials, supplies, work-based learning activities, and to hire a full-time, site-based CTE TOSA to support work-based learning activities and expansion of business and community partners.

How is it decided which action items are assigned to which of these separate funding sources?

E.3.- 6. Public Hearings and Board Resolutions Regarding Sufficiency of Textbooks or Instructional Materials


Staff is presenting for public hearing a resolution (Education Code 60119) for textbooks or instructional materials sufficiency.  The Williams vs. State of California settlement (August 13, 2004) requires that the public hearing and certification of textbooks or instructional materials occur within the first eight weeks of each school year.


ABES, BHES, JMES, SLES, RVMS, EAHS, MHS and SRHS were all visited by SCOE. Materials were found to be sufficient and facilities were found to be good (except EAHS facilities were rated ‘fair.’)

Elementary Williams Resolution

Secondary Williams Resolution

SRTA members are not satisfied with a facilities rating of ‘Good’ for Montgomery High School. Half of the sites’ facilities evaluations are nine months out of date. How does SRCS evaluate the sites’ facilities conditions to decide on their ratings?

With the adoption of one-to-one chromebooks for students, many classes make use of online resources. A systemic system for checking out, assisting students with logging in, providing loans when a student doesn’t bring their device, replacing, and holding families accountable for the damage or return of devices is wanting. 

E.7. (Action) Approval of District and School Site Safety Plans


The Board will consider approval of elementary, middle, high school, and district Comprehensive School Safety Plans for the 2023-2024 school year.

Abraham Lincoln Elementary

Albert Biella Elementary

Brook Hill Elementary

Cesar Chavez Language Academy

Helen Lehman Elementary

Hidden Valley Elementary

James Monroe Elementary

Lewis Early Learning Academy

Luther Burbank Elementary

Proctor Terrace Elementary

Santa Rosa Charter School of the Arts

Santa Rosa French-American Charter School

Steele Lane Elementary

Herbert Slater Middle

Hilliard Comstock Middle

Rincon Valley/Santa Rosa Accelerated Charter

Santa Rosa Middle

Elsie Allen High

Maria Carrillo High

Montgomery High

Piner High

Ridgway High

Santa Rosa High

SRTA recommends members review their Site Safety Plans, with special attention to policies around discipline, gang affiliation, and dress code. Each Site Council approves these, and certificated representatives on Site Councils  should be serving as liaisons with site staff ensuring these policies are appropriate.

Some safety plans reference student handbooks which are said to be posted on school websites. With the recent website migration, these are not all currently uploaded.

Much of the safety plans appear based on a SRCS template. Is this something a District Safety Committee could review?

E.8. (Action) Approval of a Variable Term Waiver (VTW) for Administrative Services Credential for Amy M. Fuller


The Board will consider approval  of a Variable Term Waiver request for an Administrative Services Credential for Amy M. Fuller to fill an open Program Manager position.

VTW Amy Fuller

This is the fourth VTW for this year.


F.2. Approval of Personnel Transactions

EdJoin shows a total of 154 current postings for 263 job vacancies for SRCS. Most jobs have been posted since the prior meeting. There are 39 certificated openings (two less than the last meeting), and 3 certificated management openings (the same as the last meeting.) There are 221 current classified openings (four less than the last meeting), and no classified management positions (the same as last month.) There are 100 open positions listed under “Teacher Assistant / Aide / Paraprof.” with pay rates starting at $18.79 per hour. There is still no mention of the $500 sign on and $500 longevity bonuses on the main screen people peruse on EdJoin. How are we utilizing these to attract applications if prospective employees don’t even know they exist?

SRTA welcomes three new certificated hires: Manon Czuckermand (FACS), Joseph Reynolds (SRHS) and George Somers (MHS). We hope you have a long and fruitful career with SRCS. This brings this year’s certificated hires to 111. That is more than 11% of our workforce.

SRTA bids farewell to Christine Roeschlau (BHES). After just one month, we are sorry to see you go. We hope that Diane Spieth (PHS) is able to be rehired in short order.

Ten more teachers have agreed to teach on their preps, bringing this number to twenty-four. These folks have agreed to work for their straight per-diem amount, not the time and a half that most professions pay for overtime.

This month’s changes to classified staff include five promotions, seven new hires and three resignations. They take nine years of wisdom and service with them. There is a net gain of four folks, while advertising for an additional two hundred twenty-five positions. 

F.5. Approval of Contracts 


2TLCD Architecture$70,000To develop and pilot new classroom and office furniture that will become the furniture standard for the District. Original  Proposal. The process will be extended from $65,000 when the standards were to be complete by September 1 to $183,890 (including $49K to One Workplace) plus $10K in reimbursable expenses. The furniture standards will now be done in June. 
3Special Olympics Northern CaliforniaNo Direct CostProvide three programs for students in both elementary and secondary.
7Integrated Security Controls, Inc.$50,000Security Cameras Maintenance Contract (time and materials) for:● Emergency Repairs● Emergency Software Updates● Emergency Consultation
8ZenDesk$44,312This is a platform used to aid users with information on technology and data access issues, prior to submitting a help ticket.
10City of Santa RosaNo Direct CostThis is an agreement around cooperating to provide Emergency Response services to our community.
11Inspire Behavior Services$3,800,000This provides about 62 Special Education Assistants to our district at $47 per hour, for 7 hours each school day, for this entire school year. Plus the cost for a weekly one hour administrative meeting.
4Community Matters (Montgomery High School)No Direct CostProvide Safe Schools Ambassadors program to MHS.
9Humanidad Therapy and Education ServicesNo Direct CostTo provide eight 1.5 hour group Convivencias for up to 15 Spanish speaking students at MHS.
1Springboard Collaborative$190,200This program was successfully used this summer. This is for professional development, training & support to SRCS teachers for this after school intervention. The contract includes materials, and online platform access to support the TK-3 early literacy pilot program at 5 elementary schools. Cost: $130+ per student.
5Community Matters (Helen Lehman Elementary)No Direct CostProvide Safe Schools Ambassadors program to HLES.
6Community Matters (Hidden Valley ElementaryNo Direct CostProvide Safe Schools Ambassadors program to HVES.

Total value of contracts = $4,154,511.80

Summary of Contracts


The Summary of Contracts in the board agenda includes more metric information than in the past. SRTA members notice and appreciate this shift.

The Safe School Ambassador program empowers students to prevent and stop bullying. At the secondary level, when does this program happen? Does this require staff to work during duty free time? If so, how are they compensated? 

SRTA members are concerned about the $3.8 million dollar contract for INSPIRE. EdJoin currently shows 100 vacancies for “Assistant / Aide / Paraprof.” There is no difficulty understanding that SRCS can not attract and retain these crucial positions. The recent Press Democrat article covered this, but they quoted far fewer open positions than are currently posted on EdJoin. In this contract SRCS has agreed to pay $47 per hour for 63 Special Education Assistants to work 7 hours per day. INSPIRE is currently advertising these positions at $20-$25 per hour. SRCS currently offers $19.74 – $20.74 for these positions for 6 hour days. This is slated to come from fund 6500, which appears to be Special Ed Funding. This raises fiscal questions about our Special Education department. Doesn’t the cost of what we provide these students go beyond our special funding, and require general funds?

The 8% raise across the board for CSEA had a total cost of $3,258,730 (CSEA 75 Public Disclosure 8% Cost.pdf), significantly less than this contract. Another 8% raise across the board to our classified staff would bring these positions to $21.32 – $22.40 per hour. Instead we are paying nearly $2 million in overhead for someone else to provide staffing services. Is this the best SRCS can do?

F.6 . Approval of SRHS FFA Members to travel to Indianapolis, IN for the 2023 FFA Convention


The Board will consider approving the field trip request for Santa Rosa High School FFA Chapters to travel to Indianapolis, IN for the National FFA Convention.

SRHS Schedule

Field Trip Request Form

Letter of Intent


F.7 . Approval of Bilingual NBBTRP Expansion Residency Grant with Napa Unified School District and Sonoma State University (SSU)


The Board will consider approval of the contract MOU between Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) and  Santa Rosa City Schools (SRCS) to execute the actions outlined in the North Bay Bilingual Teacher Residency Program (NBBTRP). 


F.8. Approval of Panaptic Marijuana Prevention Program Agreement for MCHS


The Board will consider the approval of a contract with Panaptic  to support restorative intervention for an offense of possession of tobacco or THC products.  This online resource will be facilitated by school staff during reentry after school consequences to support student learning about safe decision making and healthy life options. The $75 per student cost is funded by the Sonoma County Department of Health. 


F.9 . Approval of School District Nomination to the Sonoma County School Attendance Review Board (SARB)

Nominations (Desideri) (Turner)

F.10 . Approval of the Professional Services Proposal from TLCD Architects for the Tenant Improvements at 110 Stony Point Suite 105 A/B


The Board will consider the approval of the project assignment for design services for the tenant improvements at the temporary District Offices in suite 105 of the Stony Point campus.

Cost $8,000.


This brings the current cost for the district office relocation to at least $1,801,184. What is the total budgeted cost for this temporary relocation?

G.1. Approval of Minutes

September 13, 2023 Minutes

I1. Future Board Discussion Items

SRTA Members are encouraged to prepare for the upcoming agenda items.

  • Week of the School Administrator Resolution (10/11)
  • LGBTQIA+ History Month Resolution (10/11)
  • Filipino American History Month Resolution (10/11)
  • West County Transportation Agency Update (10/11)
  • Week of the School Psychologist (10/25)

SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:

  • Alternative Education options for students
  • Officially closing Learning House
  • Facilities Master Plan (FMP) Presentation (11/8)
  • Week of the School Administrator Resolution (9/27)

SRTA appreciated the work of our school administrators. We acknowledge how often that job requires more than is doable by a single person or team. SRTA members can only imagine how it feels to have no job protection like the contract and due process our union supports.

  • LGBTQIA+ History Month  (9/27)
  • MAP Testing (Board request 8/23/23)

At one meeting, the fact that a certain percentage of math and English teachers had given this test last year was presented as evidence that the test is good, and teachers supported giving it. This is not logical. The legitimate concerns teachers have shared about this assessment have been dismissed. The meeting teachers had with a district representative last year about alternative assessment possibilities appears to have been a waste of time and energy.

The longitudinal CAASPP data has clearly identified concerns about student performance. Current efforts could be better spent addressing those academic concerns, instead of collecting more data. This is especially frustrating when this assessment isn’t valued as helpful for students or teachers. 

Thank you to Directors Medina and De La Cruz for requesting more information on this assessment.  SRTA members look forward to this agenda item.

  • Parcel Tax
  • COVID Updates (6/14/23 8/9/23)

Students deserve to continue to have masks, hand sanitizer, and  facial tissue available, as well as having serviced HEPA fans in classrooms to filter air.

  • Safety (board statement on 3/8/23 that this will be a future item)

The California Constitution states, “All students and staff of public … schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure, and peaceful.” (Article 1, Section 28(f). 

What are the steps for intervening when a student creates a disruptive and/or unsafe situation for other students and staff?

Current practices seem to protect bullies and tolerate intimidation without intervention, leaving the remaining students feeling unsafe and vulnerable. This also sends a clear message to students that this type of alarming behavior is acceptable and will not have consequences. 

What is the current discipline policy and process? When are police contacted? How is SRCS keeping track of contacts with the police in order to be able to address the underlying issues?

What are the consequences for cutting a class? Students not experiencing any repercussions are wandering our campuses instead of attending classes. This can lead to unsafe conditions for other students as well as serious learning loss.

An audit of the programs for students with special needs is called for. Have we been able to attract and retain the necessary employees to run these programs effectively? 

What anti-bullying efforts are we implementing?

How many students are not coming to campus because they don’t feel safe? It is a hardship on teachers to provide independent study.

  • A-G Program Review (board request 8/10/22, and again on 6/14/23)

What does the data look like about A-G Completion since this policy was adopted? Where is data on students that are not on track to graduate? How helpful were prior IGPs in allowing students to earn diplomas? How many current students are not on track to graduate? How many of these students are meeting the state requirements for a diploma but not the extra requirements of our district? 

What systemic measures are in place to offer academic support K-12 to increase A-G success? What metrics are being used to evaluate these efforts?

  • Results of Developer Fee exploration
  • SRACS Accelerated Charter Material Revision Request (delayed)
  • Deferred Maintenance Update and Future Planning (7/27/22 8/24/22)
  • Review of Math grades and progress including demographic data (board request)
  • SCOE Unification/Redistricting Report (on option #1)
  • Staff Housing support program from the proceeds of Fir Ridge

When is the deadline to have plans for this program up so these funds are not


  • Open Enrollment Policy Update 
  • Student Voice Policy
  • BEST Plus Update

I.4.  SCOE Approval Letter for 2023/2024 Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)

SCOE 23-24 LCAP Letter

I.5.  SCOE Approval Letter for 2023/24 Adopted Budget

SCOE 23-24 BudgetLetter

I.6.   Facilities Projects Update

  • FMP meetings continue through the end of the month. Community Input meetings are the week of Oct. 30.  Board presentation tentatively on Nov. 8
  • RHS portables have been emptied in preparation for demolition. Useable items were repurposed.
  • Summer HVAC projects planned for HLES, RVMS, and LBES. 
  • MCHS theater lighting should be finished by Oct. 2
  • SRHS DeSoto Hall had some rooftop HVAC equipment installed on 9/22. The project is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
  • ABES MPR roofing installed. Job should be completed during November.
  • Solar Array projects are underway. ABES is nearly complete. HCMS, JMESand EAHS are in process.
  • High School bathrooms are nearly done.

A restroom stall divider at a site was installed in such a way as to prohibit use of a floor drain for removing a blocked sewer line. Are we holding the contractor accountable and having these sorts of things fixed?

Facilities Project Updates

I.7.  Revised Board Governance Handbook


The updates reflect changes to the board’s composition as well as updates to the board bylaws and stipends.

Red Line Copy

Revised Copy

Board members receive a stipend of $510.51 per month, $13,595 in medical benefits, $72 per month for dental and $8.28 per month for vision. The district also provides a $50,000 life insurance policy. This totals more than $20,648 annually. 

The handbook includes the metrics the board uses to evaluate the Superintendent.

%d bloggers like this: