REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Santa Rosa City Schools
January 28, 2025
Hybrid: Santa Rosa High School Auditorium
4:00 p.m. – Closed Session
6:00 p.m. – Open Session
Hybrid: Zoom / Santa Rosa City Hall
*** streamed ***
Video Board Meetings through this 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 agendacomments@srcs.k12.ca.us. Please CC wearesrta@gmail.com on your email.
Members attending online are encouraged to add SRTA to the front of their Zoom client name.
Closed Session Items:
A.1. Public Comment On Closed Session Agenda Items To comment, email Melanie Martin at mmartinsrcs.k12.ca.us.
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the board on Closed Session items only.
Without specifics on closed session agenda items, it is impossible for the public to know when to provide insights for items being reviewed.
B.1. Student Readmissions (Case No: 2022/23-24)
B.2. Student Expulsion (Case No: 2025/26-13)
B.3. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
B.4. Conference With Labor Negotiator – Name of designated rep attending: Dr. Vicki Zands (SRCS); name of organizations: SRTA, CSEA Santa Rosa 75, Teamsters Union 665
B.5. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Title of employee being reviewed: Superintendent, Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Vice Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors, Coordinators)
C. RECONVENE TO REGULAR OPEN SESSION (6:00 p.m.)
D. REPORTS (Bargaining Units, Sup, and Board)
E. Public Comment on Non Agenda and Consent Items
SRTA Members are invited to complete ‘blue cards’ at the board meeting in order to make public comments. Online comments have been suspended unless a board member is attending remotely. Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items NOT on the agenda are addressed at this time, with the exception of consent items (See section F.)
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 on students and staff.
Speakers are limited to just those in person (unless a board member attends online.)
Comments are most impactful when they are well spoken, composed and reasonable.
- SRCS is not in the habit of reviewing and evaluating decisions with metrics. It seems reasonable for SRCS to evaluate the mergers that have happened in terms of finances, enrollment and student and staff experience, before blindly continuing. The A-G decision is overdue for an evaluation.
F. CONSENT ITEMS
All consent items are enacted by the Board in one motion, unless a Board member requests that an item be removed and discussed separately.
F.2. Approval of Personnel Transactions
EdJoin shows a total of 61 current postings for 129 jobs in SRCS. There are ten certificated opening postings (one less than last month) for seven teaching positions and three other certificated positions. There are forty-eight current classified postings for one-hundred sixteen job openings (four more than the last meeting.) There are two certificated and one classified management position posted.
The position of SRJ/SHS Principal is posted as is the District Accountant.
SRTA heartily welcomes Janet DeSena (HLES) and Jacqueline Bautista (EDSERV.) We welcome back Elizabeth Gaines (PHS.)
We bid farewell to Alexandra Evans (HLES) who resigned taking four months of experience with them.
Changes to classified staff includes five new hires, one rehire and five resignations. They leave taking with them over thirty-three years of knowledge and service to our staff and students..
F.5. Approval of Contracts over $15,000
| # | Provider | Cost | Description |
| Elementary | |||
| 1 | Westminster Woods | $15,800 | Outdoor Ed for Steele Lane |
Total value of contracts = $15,800.
F.6. Approval of Contracts – Bond
The new last column lists the total cost of the project.
| # | Contractor | Site | Service | Cost | Project Total Cost |
| Elementary | |||||
| 1 | PBK | DO | PBK will provide space planning coordination and test fitting of furniture layouts | $84,140.00 | $78,000,000 |
Measure C = $63,946.40
Measure G = $20,193.60
Total = $84,140.00
Measure C and G Implementation Plan
This is more than a year’s salary for most SRCS employees for furniture design for the new DO. SRCS will order and purchase furniture independently.
F.7. Approval of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the Elsie Allen High School Roof Replacement and HVAC Project
Total project cost estimate: $21 Million
F.8. Approval of Updated Resolution for Surplus Property 7-11 Committee
Appointment to the Surplus Property Advisory (7-11) Committee:
Jennifer Bruneman (Former SRCS employee, Director of Facilities West County USD)
Robert Chandler (MCHS Teacher)
Ryan Partika (PHS VP)
Patricia Cisco (Marriage & Family Therapist)
Shayna Kirk (Community Health Worker)
Hugh Futrell (Real Estate Developer)
Jeffrey Tibbetts (Deputy Director of Recreation with SR City)
Efren Carrillo (Director Gallaher Community Housing)
Jenni Klose (Former SRCS Board President, Director Generation Housing)
F.9. Approval of Updated Salary Schedules due to reduction of work days: Schedule Management, Supervisory & Unrepresented Employees, Confidential Employees and Working Professional
These updates reflect previously approved reductions in workdays adopted as compensation concessions to address the District’s fiscal shortfall.
Management Salary Schedule (Current) (Revised)
Supervisory & Unrepresented Salary Schedule (Current) (Revised)
Confidential Employees Salary Schedule (Current) (Revised)
Working Professional Salary Schedule (Current) (Revised)
F. 10. Approval on New Course Proposal
Construction 1 Course Proposal
Construction 2 Course Proposal
Careers in Education Course Proposal
Public Health in Action Course Proposal
Intro to Agriculture – Discovery II Course Proposal
F.11. Approval of Agreement Between SRCS and 3D Strategies, Inc.
This proposal is for services pertaining to the property value appraisals and evaluation of potential development options of Lewis Early Learning Education Center, Brook Hill Elementary School and Santa Rosa French American Charter School (aka Doyle Park).
Cost: $19,500
Each individual title report is $750 for a total of $2,250 added in contingency cost.
F.12. District-Wide Copier Fleet Refresh Lease and Services (Equipment & Maintenance) Proposal with KBA Document Solutions, LLC
The Board will consider a proposal with KBA Document Solutions, LLC for a District-Wide copier fleet refresh lease and services agreement.
131 units on sites: 125 color copiers 35 sheets per minute, 6 b and w copiers, 70 sheets per minute
5 Copiers for duplicating
Restrict color printing to authorized users
HP toner estimated cost included
Remove all HP desktop printers to drive volume to cost-effective Kyocera devices.
Color cost-per-copy program at $0.03 per copy.
Eliminate HP toner costs for significant additional savings.
Cost: $31,782.84 per month (22% savings) This is a four year lease.
SRTA celebrates the decision to leave district duplicating in place.
SRTA members are concerned about the impact on student learning from the elimination of desktop printers. When a single student needs a single copy of something, it is not possible to leave the class to retrieve the copy from the larger printer, which are often placed where students do not have access.
Also, limiting color copies to authorized users is like limiting access to colored paper. Requiring professionals to seek permission to be able to complete mundane tasks is unreasonable.
F.13. Approval of Proposed Job Description for Maintenance, Operations, and Transportation Manager
Current Custodial Manager Job Description
Maintenance, Operations, and Transportation Manager Job Description
F.14. Approval of Proposed Job Description for Assistant Maintenance and Operations Manager
Current Assistant Custodial Job Description
Assistant Maintenance, Operations, and Transportation Job Description
F.15. Approval of Proposed Increase of Minimum Wage
The Finance Subcommittee recommended setting the minimum wage for the attached Extra Duty Hourly/Miscellaneous Salary Schedule to align with the local minimum wage, effective January 1, 2026, this rate is $18.21. The item was presented at a prior meeting and was denied.
The part time positions impacted are:
- Accompanist
- After School Athletic Program, Elementary
- Auditorium Supervisor
- Ticket Taker/Timekeeper/Scorekeeper
- Student Workers
The revision of the Extra Duty Hourly/Miscellaneous Salary Schedule reflects an increase to the local minimum wage and minor corrections to the language.
Extra Duty Hourly Miscellaneous Salary Schedule (Current) (Updated)
N
SRTA members support meeting at least the local minimum wage for all employees of the district.
G. Discussion/Action Items
G.1. (Action) Approval of Revised Resolution No. 2025/26-49 Criteria to Determine Certificated Personnel Who Shall be Exempt From the Order of Layoff by Virtue of Their Credentials, Assignment, or Certification (“Skipping Criteria”)
In preparation for a potential Reduction in Force (RIF), the Board will consider adoption of revised Resolution 2025/26-49, applying specific skipping criteria that allow deviation from seniority-based termination of certificated employees. Revisions include updating the Transitional Kindergarten (TK) criterion to require California TK eligibility and adding International Baccalaureate (IB) certification as a qualifying specialization.
SRTA members insist that it is unfair to grant skipping to teachers who have been given an opportunity not available to other teachers. IB training has only been offered to a select group of teachers from a single site.
Is this measure in support of the strategic goal for Academics and Enrichment? If so, all training in support of academic excellence should be treated equally, such as Advanced Learner Programs, Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate training.
G.2. (Action) Second Read and Approval of Board Policy 5141.5: Mental Health
SRTA members insist on being included in the development and implementation plan for the training required by this policy.
G.3 Educational Items
G.3a. (Action) Educational Items – Approval of the Annual School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs)
Elementary (ALES) (CCLA) (LBES) (JMES) (HLES) (HVES) (PTES) (SLES) (SRAC) (SRCSA) (SRFAC)
Middle (HCMS) (MMS) (RVMS) (SRMS)
High (EAHS) (MCHS) (MHS) (PHS) (RHS) (SRHS)
Is there a system in place to ensure these are posted on each sites’ website?
The class sizes in elementary are completely misleading. The SDC classes with 2-5 students in a particular grade level and combo classes with 15-18 per grade are being counted as full classes, artificially lowering the average class sizes listed.
G.3b. (Action) Educational Items – Approval of Proposed Job Description for Director of Secondary Education
The revision reflects an updated title and scope of responsibilities to align with the restructured department and the duties.
G.3c. (Action) Educational Items – Approval of Proposed Job Description for Director of Elementary Education
G.4a.Finance – Public Comment
SRTA Members are invited to complete ‘blue cards’ at the board meeting in order to make public comments. Online comments have been suspended unless a board member is attending remotely. Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only finance items are addressed at this time.
G.4b. (Discussion) Finance – The 2026-27 Governor’s Budget Proposal
The proposal focuses on continued implementation of previous investments, not new programs. The Governor’s 2026–27 Budget proposes full funding of the LCFF, including a 2.41% statutory COLA, applied to LCFF and several categorical programs. Additional proposals include one-time discretionary block grant funding (estimated at $5.6 million for the district), increased Special Education funding with both COLA and base-rate equalization, restoration of deferred Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant funds, and continued investment in Community Schools and other existing education programs. The budget also includes targeted investments in transportation, teacher preparation, literacy screening, and education governance reform. The financial impact of these proposals will be analyzed and reported in the district’s 2025–26 Second Interim Financial Report as the state budget process continues through June.
Summary of the Governor’s Proposed 2026-27 Budget
G.4c. (Action) Finance – Acceptance of the 2024-2025 Independent Audit Report and Corrective Action
SRCS is called out for not having appropriate reserves and not being in compliance with Ed Code 41372. SRCS was required to spend at least 55% of total expense after subtracting overrides on classroom teacher salaries. However, the District incurred only 52.28%. This resulted in a deficiency of $5,885,227. (Best guesses are that the proposals in G.4d will further lower this to under 48%.)
Certification and Corrective Action
SRTA members have expressed concern about the potential impact on students resulting from further reductions to direct classroom expenditures.
G.4d. (Discussion) Finance – Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
FCMAT was created by the California Legislature to help California’s TK-12 local educational agencies (LEAs) avoid fiscal insolvency. When FCMAT is asked for help with management assistance or a fiscal crisis, FCMAT management and staff work closely with the requesting LEA to meet their needs. Often this means conducting a formal study using a FCMAT study team that coordinates with the LEA for on-site fieldwork to evaluate specified operational areas and subsequently produces a written report with findings and recommendations for improvement. For more immediate needs in a specific area, FCMAT offers short-term technical assistance from a FCMAT staff member with the required expertise.
Overall District Fiscal Risk Level: High, 57%. Any Rating above 40% is considered “High Risk.”
June 25 Moody downgraded SRCS ratings.
Highlights of the FCMAT Findings:
Leadership Identified as an Issue
“The district’s deficit spending has grown substantially over the past two fiscal years.”
“The district disregarded its own financial projections and took action that worsened its fiscal condition.”
Inability to fully utilize restricted funds.
Failure to make necessary reductions.
Lacking responsibility assignments with accountability
SPED encroaching on the General Fund grew from $41M (23-24) to $51M (25-26).
Lack of Transparency
Fiscal details
Budget development
Assumption details
Estimates vs actuals
Financial implications of mergers
Cash flow measures
Plan to meet financial agreements
Provide board information to make informed decisions
One time fund balances and utilization plans
Staffing Ratios
New and revised policies
Lack of Formal Processes
Position Control (despite being a stated priority)
Fund transfers from unrestricted to restricted
Budget development
Acceptance and evaluation of grants
Internal Controls
Comprehensive fiscal stability plan
Repayment plan for emergency transfers of funds
Spending restricted funds first
Access and authorization controls
FCMAT Recommendations for Moving Forward
Recognize the problem
Do not mask the problem.
Take advantage of financial expertise that is available.
Work collaboratively with oversight agencies.
Be part of the solution
SRTA appreciates SCOE requiring this report from FCMAT. It is a scathing assessment of SRCS. It defends SRTA’s long standing chorus of lacking leadership, lack of transparency and lack of systems. These deficits have led to our communities lack trust in SRCS.
SRTA’s repeated requests for an org chart that specifies who is responsible for what and how to contact them has fallen on deaf ears. We have been ignored when we have continuously asked for implementation plans with metrics that are used to evaluate initiatives. SRTA has been shunned for asking for improved, transparent communication. SRCS denied SRTA’s request to partner with experts from CTA and FCMAT to solve this financial fiasco.
SRCS is called out for not having appropriate reserves and not being in compliance with Ed Code 41372. SRCS was required to spend at least 55% of total expense after subtracting overrides on classroom teacher salaries. However, the District incurred only 52.28%. This resulted in a deficiency of $5,885,227. (Best guesses are that the proposals in G.4d will further lower this to under 48%.)
SRTA Member insight on this report:
Lack of Leadership
The district’s fiscal and operational crisis is the direct result of repeated leadership failures, not classroom or student spending. Leadership repeatedly ignored financial projections, delayed necessary structural decisions, and failed to implement sustainable special education systems, allowing SPED costs to balloon from $41.1M to $51.1M in two years. Acting Superintendent and District Office decisions reflect a continuation of this mismanagement, with no accountability for repeated mistakes. Staff highlight poor SPED oversight, inadequate support for teachers, and weak program management as drivers of escalating costs, legal vulnerability, and classroom dysfunction. Without meaningful change in leadership, accountability, and board composition, any recovery plan will fail, and cutting student-facing services will punish educators and students for failures entirely outside their control. A vote of no confidence in district leadership is strongly warranted.
Lack of Transparency
The district’s chronic lack of transparency—delayed or withheld fiscal data, unclear assumptions, and incomplete reporting—has prevented meaningful oversight, enabled mismanagement, and directly contributed to the financial crisis and potential state takeover. Board members have repeatedly rubber-stamped administrative actions without demanding accountability or receiving timely information, undermining governance and perpetuating dysfunction. Without full disclosure, accurate data, and responsive leadership, any proposed cuts or structural changes risk repeating the same mistakes.
Lack of Formal Processes
The district’s crisis stems from a chronic absence of formal fiscal processes—deficient position control, weak internal controls, uncontrolled fund transfers, and poor budget and grant oversight—allowing mismanagement to flourish. Leadership, particularly Acting Superintendent Lisa August, has overseen these failures while being tasked with resolving them, essentially perpetuating the same practices that caused the instability. The Board’s failure to demand accountability or structural reform has entrenched dysfunction, making state intervention inevitable and highlighting the urgent need for outside oversight.
FCMAT Recommendations for Moving Forward
FCMAT’s recommendations are clear, but the district has failed to act, and trust in current leadership is gone. The crisis was caused by leadership decisions—not teacher salaries—and will not be solved without removing dysfunctional leaders, stabilizing the Board with experienced educators, and engaging outside oversight. Transparency, accountability, and structural change are essential; until these actions are taken, the district is on a path to state intervention rather than recovery.
SRTA’s message is clear: the crisis at SRCS is not about teachers, students, or classrooms—it is about failed leadership, opaque decision-making, and a broken system at the top. Years of ignoring accountability, delaying hard choices, and protecting administrative comfort over student needs have eroded trust, inflated costs, and put our schools on the brink. Meaningful recovery will require real leadership change, full transparency, and structural reform—not more cuts to the very people who educate and support our students. Until the Board acts decisively, the district is on a path to continued dysfunction, financial collapse, and inevitable state intervention.
G.4e. (Discussion) Finance – Financial Stabilization Plan and Recommendations to the Board
| Realm | Proposal | FTE | Rate | Total | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Admin | DO Reduction | 9 | $213,075 | $1,917,677 | |
| Site Admin | 4 | $188,490 | $753,958 | $2,671,635 | |
| Classified | New College and Career positions | 3 | $65,685 | $197,054 | |
| Eliminate 1 Secretary Ed Serv | 1 | $91,680 | $91,680 | ||
| Restorative | 8 | $114,361 | $914,891 | ||
| Instructional Aides- elem mild/mod | 7 | $58,275 | $407,925 | $1,217,442 | |
| Certificated | RSP Teachers- eliminate co-teach | 10 | $164,949 | $1,649,487 | |
| Classroom | Elementary Mild/Mod/SDC | 4 | $127,973 | $511,891 | |
| HS Sections (free seat adjust) | 5.5 | $111,483 | $613,158 | ||
| Gen Ed (SpEd Adjust) | 18.4 | $112,300 | $2,070,812 | ||
| Raise Elem ratios | 14 | $112,300 | $1,572,200 | ||
| Elem PE (change prep) | 4.5 | $112,300 | $505,350 | $6,922,898 | |
| Certificated | Elim College and Career positions | 3 | $131,369 | $394,108 | |
| Non Classroom | Psychs | 3 | $182,034 | $546,102 | |
| MTSS | 5 | $168,413 | $842,063 | ||
| Elem Counselors | 7.4 | $133,443 | $987,475 | $2,769,748 | |
| Misc | Copier Contract | $110,071 | |||
| SBT | 16.5 | $124,239 | $2,049,950 | ||
| Induction Support | $2,500 | $106,500 | $2,266,521 | ||
| TOTAL FTE LOSS | 120.3 | TOTAL | $15,848,244 |
It is disheartening that SRCS budgets 24% for Services and Other Operating Expenditures while a typical district is less than half that at 9-12%. With that disparity, it is alarming that there are no proposed cuts in this area.
SRCS has an annual budget of nearly $20M in non-bond contracts. Exactly one of these contracts is proposed to be renegotiated to save $110,000.
SRTA has long advocated keeping cuts as far away from the students as possible. That is not the case here. California Ed Code 41372 requires SRCS to spend at least 55% of total expense after subtracting overrides on classroom teacher salaries on compensation in the classroom. The District incurred only 52.28% last year. This resulted in a deficiency of $5,885,227. Best guesses are that the proposals in this item will further lower this percentage to under 48%.
With a lack of transparency, there is no understanding of where the current year cuts ($2.8M?) are coming from. Further, by not including any of this information in the stabilization plan, it is assumed that these are not ongoing cuts. Shouldn’t they be ongoing?
SRTA offers the following summary of member insights to the cuts proposed in this agenda item:
Administration Cuts
Stakeholders express strong concern that the proposed administrative cuts are insufficient at the District Office (DO) level and disproportionately impact school sites. While 9 DO FTEs are proposed for reduction compared to 4 site administrators (VPs), many believe deeper DO reductions are possible and necessary to protect site-level operations and student safety. There is particular opposition to cutting VPs, who are viewed as essential and already overburdened with legal compliance and district-driven micromanagement. LAUSD, a district with a 700:1 VP ratio, has multiple certificated Deans at each site to handle discipline.
Repeated concerns were raised about the necessity, effectiveness, and transparency of certain DO roles and departments, including Public Information, and the Wellness department, and whether these functions could be consolidated or eliminated in favor of restoring attendance-focused structures (e.g., SARB) that directly support ADA and student outcomes.
Additional suggestions included eliminating the separate DO facility to realize cost savings, negotiating salary reductions for remaining DO administrators, and requiring clearer accountability or role clarification for district administrators. Overall, there is broad sentiment that the fiscal crisis stems from long-standing failures to reduce central office staffing and that further DO cuts—rather than site-level reductions—are necessary to preserve classroom resources, avoid a state takeover, and maintain local control.
Classified Cuts
Stakeholders strongly oppose proposed classified staff reductions, emphasizing that these positions—particularly instructional aides, restorative staff, counselors, and specialized program supports—have a direct and critical impact on student safety, learning, and well-being. Teachers report that aides, especially those supporting students with autism and other high needs, are essential for student access to curriculum, behavioral regulation, and family communication. While there is appreciation for restorative practices, some question their cost effectiveness, yet still express concern about the consequences of eliminating restorative supports altogether.
Many commenters describe the cuts as harmful and short-sighted, warning they will lead to increased behavioral crises, reduced mental health support, unsafe school environments, and significant instructional disruption. There is also concern that eliminating specialized programs (such as mild/moderate services) yields minimal fiscal savings while disproportionately harming vulnerable students. Overall, the sentiment is that removing student-facing supports undermines educational stability, accelerates enrollment loss, and ultimately worsens the district’s financial and operational challenges rather than resolving them.
Certificated-Classroom Cuts
Stakeholders strongly oppose proposed certificated classroom reductions, particularly the elimination of Mild/Moderate, SDC, RSP, and ALD programs, and any increase to K–3 class size ratios. These cuts are viewed as highly damaging to early literacy, classroom management, and student social-emotional development, especially during critical formative years. Increasing K–3 ratios is seen as educationally unsound, potentially noncompliant with funding and accountability requirements, and likely to accelerate enrollment loss as families seek smaller class environments.
There is significant concern that eliminating special education programs and co-teaching models while also reducing instructional aides will deny students with disabilities legally required services, expose the district to compliance and litigation risks, and place unsustainable demands on general education teachers. Commenters emphasize that SDC and Mild/Moderate programs are essential placements, not optional supports, and that proposed savings are minimal compared to the educational harm.
Additional concerns include the elimination of elementary PE positions, which would reduce instructional time, violate contractual preparation time, and place additional burdens on classroom teachers. Overall, the sentiment is that these proposals will increase teacher burnout, disrupt school operations, compromise student safety and learning, and ultimately worsen the district’s financial outlook through enrollment declines rather than achieve long-term fiscal stability.
There is no transparency around section allocations, and it has proven impossible to make sense of the FTE cuts to secondary with the provided descriptions. Eliminating co-teaching looks to reduce Education Specialist Teachers by 10 FTE and General Ed Teachers by 18.4 FTE. Who will those students be with?
The elimination of our needed counselors, special education teachers, restorative staff and special ed support creates an enormous safety concern for our students. It can not be reasonably expected that teachers will be able take on all of these extra responsibilities while managing increased class sizes.
Certificated-Non Classroom Cuts
Stakeholders strongly oppose the elimination of counselors, psychologists, MTSS staff, and other student support positions, emphasizing that these roles are essential to student mental health, early intervention, special education compliance, and school safety. Commenters stress that counselors and psychologists provide irreplaceable support for students experiencing trauma, behavioral challenges, and learning barriers, and that their removal would leave schools without the capacity to identify, assess, or address student needs before they escalate into crises.
There is significant concern that cutting MTSS/504 and counseling positions will expose the district to renewed legal and compliance risks, including 504 violations and potential lawsuits, while shifting unmanageable responsibilities onto already stretched site administrators and teachers. Many view these cuts as short-sighted, prioritizing central administration over student well-being, and warn they will destabilize classrooms, increase behavioral incidents, accelerate enrollment loss, and deepen the district’s financial and operational challenges.
Miscellaneous Cuts
Where is the cost analysis of our Student-Based Therapists (SBT) program? How much of this expense is repaid through the new state billing program? Why isn’t personal health insurance information collected as part of the enrollment process so all services can be appropriately billed?
If there is another plan for meeting the mental health needs of our students, please share it. Current staff are not equipped to take on this work.
There is strong opposition to cutting Induction Support, with concerns that shifting costs to new teachers would create financial and recruitment barriers. SRCS should appropriately utilize Educator Effectiveness funds to cover this expense.
Suggested Areas to Review for Cuts
Focus on cutting district-level administration first—directors, coordinators, and nonessential positions like Wellness, Instructional Support Specialists, and unnecessary travel or stipends—before touching classrooms or student services. Site-based professional development should replace costly district PD. Major savings could also come from closing underutilized schools, consolidating offices into existing campuses, reducing reliance on outside consultants and agencies for aides or special programs, and reviewing all DO expenditures line by line. The emphasis is on structural, strategic cuts at the top rather than spreading cuts across schools, preserving classroom quality, special education, and student supports while eliminating wasteful spending.
In summary
SRTA members are deeply concerned that the proposed budget cuts prioritize preserving central administration over protecting the supports that directly impact student safety, learning, and well-being. Across all areas—District Office staffing, classified positions, certificated classroom and non-classroom roles, and miscellaneous programs—there is a consistent theme: the proposed reductions are insufficiently targeted, poorly justified, and disproportionately harmful to students and site-level staff.
Without meaningful District Office reductions, elimination of essential student-facing supports, or clear transparency around existing cuts and contract expenditures, these proposals risk destabilizing classrooms, overburdening teachers, and exposing the district to compliance and safety risks. The minimal savings projected from these cuts cannot outweigh the educational, social-emotional, and legal consequences for our students.
SRTA urges the Board to reconsider these proposals, focus reductions on truly non-essential administrative expenses, maintain critical site-level and student support positions, and ensure transparent, data-driven decision-making. Protecting classroom resources, student supports, and site-based operations is the only responsible path to preserving student learning, school safety, and the district’s long-term stability.
Final Thoughts
Staff express deep frustration, heartbreak, and fear over the district’s mismanagement, lack of accountability, and the human cost of proposed cuts. Teachers are concerned about student safety, rising class sizes, loss of counselors and special education supports, and the impossibility of managing high-needs students without adequate resources. There is strong distrust of central leadership, fear of retaliation for speaking up, and skepticism that the Board will act responsibly. Staff urge more cuts at the District Office, better management of SDC and special education programs, and protection of front-line supports. Many emphasize that recovery requires real leadership change, transparency, prioritizing students, and not sacrificing educators or student safety. There is appreciation for SRTA’s advocacy and a call for continued union support, even if state takeover occurs.
G.5. (Discussion/Action) Board Subcommittees for 2026: Board Policy
To provide better governance, the Board of Trustees would like to establish the Board Policy Subcommittee, on which no more than three Trustees will serve.
Board Policy Update Subcommittee Purpose and Proposal
- Ensure Alignment & Compliance – Work with administration to review and recommend updates to board policies to ensure they align with current state and federal laws, as well as district goals and priorities.
- Improve Clarity & Consistency – Streamline and refine policies for clarity
- Support Effective Governance – Provide the Board of Trustees with well-researched policy recommendations that promote equity, transparency, and effective decision-making.
How will the wisdom of non administrative staff be utilized by this committee?
G.6. Public Hearing and Action Regarding CSEA Chapter 75 “Sunshine” Proposals for Contract Openers with SRCS for 2026-2027
Article 13: Compensation
– Fair and equitable salary increase
– 2026-27 Calendar
SRTA supports the right for our classified staff to have a living wage so they can afford to live in Santa Rosa.
H. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS
H1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dec 17, 2025 Minutes and Supporting Documents
Jan 7, 2026 Minutes
Jan 14, 2026 Minutes and Supporting Documents
J. INFORMATION ITEMS
J.1. Future Board Discussion Items
Future Agenda Items:
- LCAP Mid-Year Report
What is the process for this annual evaluation? Is it part of an ongoing system to revise and update the LCAP? Why is this not done in collaboration with stakeholders?
- Action on Fiscal Stabilization Plan — Round 2
- CCLA Charter Renewal Public Hearing
- SRACS Charter Renewal Public Hearing
Will this include a material revision request, extending to fourth grade was under consideration? Will all communication with RVUSD be shared in this item?
- Cell Phone Policy Presentation (delayed from Sept 2025)
Staff was given the opportunity to complete a survey about cell phones. All questions were required to be answered, while options for answering did not always allow for an accurate response. Because of these faults, valuable input is not included in the results.
Still Pending Information Requested by Board members
Medina- AP instruction data with number of years of experience of Teachers
-Clarification about board policy adoption requiring a majority of board membership versus a majority of those present/voting
– consider E-sports clubs or teams
Caston- Site funding finance report with various amounts and sources
-strategy of athletics program across the district
-update 3510 policy around reducing waste as a discussion item
– how different sports programs are supported with rallies, etc.
Prak – Turf fields maintenance level report
– update on sports at MS level
Kirby – add an assistant wrestling coach for women?
DeLaTorre- facility fee, possible reductions?
Jenkins – Update on transportation for middle school sports
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
- Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Update (Dec 2025)
- Panorama and Youth Truth Survey Data (August 2025)
- Restorative Practices Data (March 2025)
- VAPA Program Highlights (Feb 2025)
- Plan and timeline for implementation of Dr. Gillespie’s recommendations around Special Services (January 2025), New FCMAT Study on SRCS SpEd Program
- First Draft of the District Safety Plan (delayed from September 2024)
- Sharing the Library Master Plan with implementation expectations
- Officially Closing Learning House, and other sites
- Plan for Staff Housing support program from the proceeds of Fir Ridge
Until the district makes a decision, the proceeds from the sale of the Fir Ridge property are just sitting and losing value as the cost of housing continues to rise. Getting a program started could help SRCS attract and retain CSEA staff. The potential impact of the funds continues to diminish as time passes.
- Student Voice Policy
J.2. Sonoma County Office of Education Letter_First Interim
Date: January 15, 2026 Certification Status: Negative
- SRCS cannot meet current or next year’s financial obligations.
- Structural deficits, declining enrollment, and unsustainable spending threaten cash flow in 2026–27.
Key Financials
| Metric | 2025–26 | 2026–27 | 2027–28 |
| Unrestricted General Fund Deficit | -$13.4M | -$13.0M | -$14.9M |
| Projected Negative Ending Balance | $21.4M | $34.4M | $49.3M |
| Minimum Reserve (3%) | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Fund Balance Decline (2024–25 → 2027–28) | $41.2M | — | — |
Drivers:
- Overspending at district level, delayed structural decisions, inadequate SPED systems.
- Enrollment decline not matched with staffing reductions.
Actions Taken / Planned
- Special Education Task Force review.
- Oversight of Nonpublic Agency/School contracts.
- Fiscal Stabilization Plan 1 presented ($1.9M cuts – insufficient).
- Fiscal Stabilization Plan 2 scheduled for Jan 28, 2026.
- FCMAT Fiscal Health Risk Analysis underway.
- Multi-district SELPA evaluation initiated
Mandatory SCOE Requirements
- Fiscal Stabilization Plan – Adopt & implement by Feb 16, 2026. Must include measurable cuts, address deficits, and meet reserve.
- 24-Month Cash Flow Projection – Submit by Feb 16, 2026; must show positive monthly balances through June 2027.
- Second Interim Report – Submit by Mar 17, 2026; update multiyear projections and incorporate Governor’s Budget.
- Collective Bargaining Compliance – Disclose proposals 10 days prior to board action; demonstrate financial impacts.
- Fiscal Studies & Reports – Provide SCOE with all audits, evaluations, or FCMAT studies promptly.
Charter Schools Oversight
- Monitor Accelerated Charter, Arts Charter, Cesar Chavez, French American, and Kid Street.
- Ensure budgets and enrollment do not threaten General Fund.
- Submit all required reports on time.
Debt & Spending Restrictions
- Negative certification prohibits non-voter-approved debt (COPs, BANs, revenue bonds) without SCOE approval.
- Must comply with SB1029, AB2274, AB2551, and EC transparency rules.
Critical Takeaways
- Immediate action required to avoid worsening deficits and potential state intervention.
- Structural reductions at district level are essential; classroom cuts must be last resort.
- Enrollment-aligned staffing, clear transparency, and accountability are non-negotiable.
- SCOE oversight and fiscal advisor involvement will continue until positive certification is achieved.
J.3. Dates of Future Special Board Meetings and Study Sessions
- Saturday, February 7, 2026 Board Strategic Priorities Study Session
- Thursday, March 5, 2026 Facilities Master Plan (FMP) Update Study Session
- Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Special Board Meeting, Superintendent Search
- Saturday, April 11, 2026 Special Board Meeting, Superintendent Search
SRTA members are appreciative of this transparency.
J.5. Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting Dates
- Monday, February 2, 2026
- Monday, March 2, 2026
- Monday, April 6, 2026
- Monday, May 4, 2026
- Monday, June 1, 2026
J.6. Facilities Projects Update
General Items: Facilities Master Plan meetings concluding, input will be reviewed in February
Planning Stage and Upcoming Projects:
District Office & Education Center pending DSA approval, Data Center relocated
Santa Rosa High School DeSoto Hall Modernization and Theater Roofing pending DSA approval, cost for contract in process
Elsie Allen Roofing and HVAC cost for contract in process, materials procurement underway, plan for summer 2026.
2026 Temporary Housing: Hidden Valley ES, Proctor Terrace ES, Luther Burbank ES Design under way, expect to submit drawings to DSA in March. Lease-Leaseback bids expected shortly, with the winning bid board approved in Feb.
SRFACS @ SRMS TK Classrooms Alternative Design-Build The design team addressed the additional comments from DSA. Expect approval in Feb.
Current Construction Projects:
Piner High School 2-Story Classroom Alternative Design-Build DSA approved phase 3, for site work and landscaping, structural steel framing and stair towers are up, 2nd floor progressing, roof beams in place, concrete pour in Feb.
James Monroe ES TK Classrooms Alternative Design-Build progressing quickly structural steel up, and metal roofs coming soon. Mechanical, electrical and data are being roughed in, wall framing is complete. Exterior sheathing is almost complete.
Helen Lehman ES TK Classrooms Alternative Design-Build Awaiting DSA approval for phase 2.
Santa Rosa HS Parking Lot Improvements and Fencing DSA-required modifications to the ArtQuest student restroom complete and re-opened. Front metal fencing installed but Gates are still in production. Security fencing around the stadium is complete. The new parking lot and roadway is open. Storage sheds are under construction.
District-Wide Electronic Access Controls Phase 1 projects are ongoing at Santa Rosa HS, Montgomery HS, Maria Carrillo HS, and Rincon Valley MS. Production and distribution of the access cards for Santa Rosa HS and Montgomery HS is complete. Coordination of the required programming for staff members is being conducted for the remaining Phase 1 sites, including Maria Carrillo HS and Rincon Valley MS. Construction activities are well underway at Piner HS and Abraham Lincoln ES, as part of the Phase 2 projects.
Piner HS Theater Lighting Modernization Demolition has begun. O’Rourke Electric is placing orders for the long-lead materials to ensure the project is complete for Spring performances.
Projects Closing Out:
Montgomery HS 2-Story Classroom Building Punchlist items continue being resolved. Permanent replacements for the defective stools in the science labs have been installed. Furniture delivery is now complete. DSA Certification is pending.
Montgomery High School New Communication Wire for HVAC Controls Project closeout is in process.
Rincon Valley MS Roofing & HVAC DSA certification is pending.
Central Receiving Warehouse is complete.
SRTA members were inconvenienced and concerned for safety and security with the mishap with keys and fobs. There are concerns about electronic access during emergencies, and about card programming for staff member access.