REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Santa Rosa City Schools
March 25, 2026
Hybrid: Santa Rosa City Hall Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. – Closed Session
5:30 p.m. – Open Session
Hybrid: Zoom / Santa Rosa City Hall
*** streamed ***
Video Board Meetings through a link on this district webpage. (It is often changed right before the meeting.)
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. 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 Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation Case name: Case Nos.: 24CV00520/23CV00397
Pulido v. Santa Rosa City Schools, Pienta Vs. Trunnell (et al)
B.3. Conference With Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Number of potential cases: 2)
C. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION (5:30 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. 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 G.)
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.
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 fifty-four current postings for two hundred twelve jobs in SRCS. There are ten certificated opening postings (six more than last month). FACS are the only positions posted for next year. There are thirty-nine current classified postings for one hundred seventy-two job openings (the same as the last meeting.) There are five certificated and no classified management positions posted.
Steven Carpenter (PHS), Cynthia McDaniel (LBES), Carol Forrest (PTES) and Valerie Johnson (PTES)
We bid farewell to Barbara Shelton (MCHS), Marcus Dunseth (HSMS), Beatriz Vera Mejia (CCLA), Colette Ufholtz (JMES) who resign at the end of the year taking eight and a half years of service and experience with them.
We bid a fond farewell to Steven Carpenter (PHS), Cynthia McDaniel (LBES), Carol Forrest (PTES) and Valerie Johnson (PTES) who are retiring at the end of the year, after a combined one hundred and three years of service to our students and families.
Changes to classified staff includes four hires, one rehire, one resignation and one retirement. They leave taking with them thirty-three and a half years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
There is one supervisory hire and one resignation.
F.4. Approval of Contracts over $15,000
| # | Provider | Cost | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| District | |||
| 5 | Sonoma State University / EXCEL for Youth | $187,000.00 | three weeks of classes for 375 3-8th graders at $499 each |
| 7 | VIA Actuarial Solutions | $30,000.00 | Actuarial reports for bonds. |
| 8 | Mosyle Corporation | $21,492.50 | Authentication module for district MACs |
| 9 | Chavan and Associates, LLP | $85,000.00 | Audit for all funds |
| elementary | |||
| 1 | LandPaths | $98,500.00 | Five one week outdoor ed for 210 students at $469 each |
| 2 | Luther Burbank Center for the Performing Arts | $70,000.00 | three weeks of art based camp for 250 students at $280 each |
| 4 | Springboard Collaborative | $112,796.00 | K-4 early literacy and Math for 250 students at $451 each |
| 6 | Santa Rosa City Department of Housing & Community, Recreation & Parks | $72,019.00 | Summer programs for 400 students at $180 each |
| Secondary | |||
| 3 | Santa Rosa Metro Chamber / Mike Hauser Program | No Direct Cost | summer STEM for 100 students |
Total $676,807.50.
Not all SRTA members are as impressed with Springboard as the district.
These summer program contracts only list the cost of the contract, the additional internal costs are not included, and the total cost for these efforts are not transparent.
F.5. Approval of Contracts – Bond
| # | Provider | Site | Description | Cost | Total Cost |
| District | |||||
| 2 | PQ Bids | D | Contractor Pre Qualification Services | $20,700 | Not Listed |
| Charter | |||||
| Ross Recreation | SRCSA | Play Surface | $75,000 | Not Listed | |
| Secondary | |||||
| 3 | Greystone West Company | EAHS | Construction Management for Turf Replacement | $81,681 | Not Listed |
| 4 | Greystone West Company | MCHS | Construction Management for Turf Replacement | $83,232 | Not Listed |
| 5 | Greystone West Company | MHS | Construction Management for Turf Replacement | $86,194 | Not Listed |
| 6 | Greystone West Company | PHS | Construction Management for Turf Replacement | $77,866 | Not Listed |
| 7 | Greystone West Company | SRHS | Construction Management for Turf Replacement | $80,115 | Not Listed |
| 8 | Crawford and Associates, Inc | EAHS | Roof Project Materials Testing | $25,000 | Not Listed |
| 9 | Motive Studio Architectural Services | High Schools | Turf Projects- path of travel upgrades | $246,615 | Not Listed |
| 10 | Van Pelt Construction Services | SRHS | DeSoto and Theater | $232,494 | Not Listed |
Measure C: $928,928.20
Measure G: $79,968.00
Total: $1,008,896.20
F.6. Approval of Faba Films and The Joy Lab Inc. Contract for the Use of Elsie Allen High School
This contract is to allow Elsie students to be apparently first for this pairing in their Life at Your School project. They promise hands-on experience in movie production, working alongside industry professionals in roles like directing, editing, marketing, and sound.
The project aims to authentically portray high school life while exploring themes like mental health, identity, and grief. It is part of a broader campaign focused on storytelling to build empathy, reduce stigma, and empower five students to share their experiences.
There is no cost to the school, as the project is fully grant-funded, and any proceeds from the film’s premiere hosted by the site will directly benefit the school.
F.7. Approval of Agreement between SRCS and 3D Strategies, Inc.
This proposal is for property value appraisals and evaluation of potential development options of Steele Lane Elementary School and Herbert Slater Middle School, with an option to include Hilliard Comstock Middle School if the board decides not to retain the property. These appraisals will be used to aid the 7-11 Committee.
Fund 40: $19,500
F.8. Approval of Annual Update to the HTS Transportation Plan in order to qualify for 60% Reimbursement
This is an annual resolution.
Transportation Plan SRESD 2025-26 24-25 Reimbursement $1,487,822
Transportation Plan SRHSD 2025-26 24-25 Reimbursement $2,063,870
F.9. Second Read and Approval of Board Policy 0430: Comprehensive Local Plan For Special Education
Red Lined Version of Current Board Policy REDLINE TEXT IS IN BOLD
Original Adoption: 04/12/2017 | Last Revised: 01/27/2021
The Governing Board recognizes its obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to all individuals with disabilities, aged 3 to 21 years, who reside in the district.
OPTION 2: (Districts that participate in a multi-district SELPA)
In order to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities, the district shall participate as a member of a multi-district Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) with other districts and the county office of education pursuant to Education Code 56195.1.
The district shall enter into agreements with other members of the SELPA in accordance with Education Code 56195.1 and 56195.7. Consistent with these agreements, the district shall adopt policies governing the programs and services it operates. (Education Code 56195.8)
The Superintendent or designee shall work with the other members of the SELPA to develop a local plan for the education of individuals with disabilities. The plan shall be approved by the Board and the other members of the SELPA, and shall be submitted to the SPI Superintendent of Public Instruction. (Education Code 56195.1)
Each year, the Superintendent or designee shall provide to the Board any data and/or information regarding the special education funding generated by the district as supplied by the SPI and the SELPA in accordance with Education Code 56836.148.
The local plan shall be reviewed at least once every three years and updated as needed to ensure the information contained in the plan remains relevant and accurate. The local plan shall be updated cooperatively by a committee of representatives of special and regular education teachers and administrators selected by the groups they represent and with participation by parent/guardian members of the community advisory committee, or parents/guardians selected by the community advisory committee, to ensure adequate and effective participation and communication. (Education Code 56195.9)
Special education programs and services shall be reviewed on an ongoing basis. The results of such evaluations shall be used to identify and correct any program deficiencies.
Clean Board Policy states Original Adopted Date: 02/01/1998 | Last Revised Date: 12/01/2022 | Last Reviewed Date: 3/25/2026 which does not match current board policy information.
The document attached to the 3/25/26 meeting lists the updated policy as “approved.” This is concerning for two reasons:
- The Board has not yet voted on the policy.
- There is already significant mistrust among staff and the public regarding perceptions that Board decisions are predetermined. Labeling a policy as “approved” prior to a vote reinforces the perception that the Board is being asked to rubber-stamp decisions.
The placement of this item under the consent agenda, which is typically approved in a single motion unless pulled, further contributes to this concern.
Given the policy’s significance, it would be more appropriate as a discussion/action item. The decision to form our own multiple LEA SELPA is a major decision with far reaching implications. Discussion of this matter- including discussing the financial implications and analyzing the budget, reviewing the cost of outsourced services, and a robust discussion of how we will provide services that have up until now been provided by our County Office of Education (COE) needs to be done before decisions are made, and with all facts and documents ready to be shared. Having this discussion is imperative before decisions are made. Changing the policy language in advance of that decision creates the appearance that the outcome has already been determined.
There may also be legal implications of declaring ourselves a multiple LEA SELPA before the decision has been made to leave the COE-joined SELPA.
- Does this designation have any binding impact?
- If the Board ultimately votes against SELPA formation, would the policy need to be amended again to revert to COE-joined status?
If legal confirms that this language does not pre-determine the outcome, the district should publicly communicate that clarification in writing. At present, there is extremely limited trust in district communications, and greater transparency from legal would greatly help alleviate concerns.
While there is a widely held understanding of the fiscal and operational challenges district leadership faces in working within the current SELPA structure, those challenges alone are not sufficient justification to move forward without full due diligence, transparency, and a clearly informed Board decision.
To address these concerns, SRTA would strongly recommend:
- Delaying the second read of BP 0430 until after the SELPA formation decision has been made; or
- Revising the policy to reflect our current status (COE-joined SELPA); or
- Including language that reflects both possibilities, pending Board action.
F.10. Approval of Revised Salary Schedules for CalPERS Compliance – CSEA 75 , Teamsters Local 665, Supervisory & Unrepresented, Confidential Employees, and Working Professional Employees
These revisions include updates to service recognition and related language required by CalPERS to meet compliance standards and to ensure longevity is appropriately included in members’ final retirement compensation, where applicable. This is a language update only. There are no costs associated with the changes.
25-26 Supervisory and Unrepresented
SRTA members wonder why this is an annual board approval item, and why these notations are not part of the template for these salary schedules.
F.11. Approval of Correction to Scheduled Management Salary Schedule (Effective Date Update)
Updates the effective date to July 1, 2025, to align with internal system requirements.
There is no fiscal impact associated with this correction.
F.12. Approval of Resolution 2025/26-69 for the Declaration of Obsolete Equipment/Vehicles and Authorization to Sell, Dispose, Donate, and/or Auction
Obsolete/Surplus List 4 vehicles, 6 copy machines, clay mixer, tire changer and wheel balancer, estimate total value $2,500 – $7,000.
G. BOARD POLICY UPDATES / FIRST READ – NONE
H. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS
H.1. Approval of Resolution 2025/26-68 to Designate March 31st as Farmworkers Day
Recent information and public reporting regarding allegations of sexual misconduct connected to César Chávez have prompted this resolution to center recognition on the collective contributions and sacrifices of farmworkers rather than on any single individual.
SRTA members notice how quickly the Board is able to agendize this action item.
H.2. Finance Calendar
H.2. a. Public Comment on Finance Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on H.2. agenda are addressed at this time
H.2. b. (Action) Approval of Bond Refunding Resolution and Documents
The issuance and sale of refunding bonds to refinance all or a portion of the District’s outstanding $68.6 million 2014 B and C General Obligation Bonds, would result in debt service savings for the taxpayers in the District.
Not to exceed $70 million
H.3. Educational Services Calendar
H.3. a. Public Comment on Educational Services Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on H.3. agenda are addressed at this time
H.3. b. (Discussion) Signature Program Supports Update AKA Specialized Programs
This presentation will provide a high-level overview of high school programs:
College & Career Signature Programs ● Career Technical Education (CTE) Pathways ● Visual & Performing Arts Programs (VAPA) ● Advanced Placement (AP) Courses ● Athletics Programs ● Student Activities ● AVID Program
Limited data is presented on some of these programs.
Signature Programs:
EAHS University Center 84 Students, 0.4 FTE TOSA (42 students per section)
MHS International Baccalaureate 361 Students, 0.8 FTE TOSA (90.3 students per section)
PHS Early College Magnet 431 Students, 1.0 FTE TOSA (86.2 students per section)
SRHS Art Quest 363 Students, 0.4 FTE TOSA (181.5 students per section)
Not a Signature Program: MCHS Advanced Placement 468 Students, 0.2 FTE TOSA (468 students per section) (The rest of the district has 353 AP Students.)
According to the presentation: The funding and support for various signature programs differs across sites. Some sites have creatively used section allocations as a way to supplement either low class sizes or program coordinator time. With the reduction of sections, this becomes more difficult and further impacts available resources to grow and support these important opportunities for students. There is NO specific financial information provided.
SRTA members want the board to be aware of how active district administrators are in choosing site programs, allowing transfers to programs, and funding the support necessary for programs. When sections are allocated, programs are impacted. There is no transparency around section allocation, and how follow up revisions are made to those section numbers.
H.3. c. (Discussion) Update on Secondary Redesign Work for Piner High School and Elsie Allen High School
This focuses on the transition from a 4-year High School model to a Junior / Senior High School Programs model.
There is no financial, enrollment or evaluation utilizing metrics to assess the first year of this implementation.
SRTA members are far from convinced that this model is effective at meeting its primary objective of cutting costs. Furthermore, there is concern about further enrollment decline as the community chooses to not place their students in a 7-12 environment.
A couple of days with a consultant is not enough to heal wounds of disrespect as devoted teachers have endured broken promises and insufficient teaching situations in this first year of transition.
H.4. Special Education Calendar
H.4. a. Public Comment on Educational Services Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on this agenda calendar are addressed at this time.
H.4. b. First Read of Local Plan for Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Formation
Local Plan of proposed Santa Rosa City SELPA, and Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Advisory Statement
CAC Advisory Statement
The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) found significant gaps in clarity, transparency, and planning. Key concerns include unclear governance and oversight, insufficient detail on program implementation, lack of a fully established CAC structure, and limited accessibility of supporting documents in the SELPA plan. .
The CAC also raised major issues with the elimination of mild-to-moderate Special Day Classes, noting the plan does not explain how the district will maintain required placement options or ensure compliance with federal special education law. Additional concerns involve potential loss of independent dispute resolution, heavy reliance on costly outside services, and unclear fiscal planning in a district-run SELPA model.
Given these concerns—particularly around financial risk, reduced oversight, and incomplete planning—the CAC recommends that the Board not approve the Local Plan or move forward with forming a district-administered SELPA at this time.
Several areas of service are not provided by SRCS. They will have to be provided through contracts with others.
$22 million in restricted income
$68.4 million in projected expenses including $28.3 from 5000’s (services and other operating expenses) with $46.4 million supplemented from the General Fund. There is no clarification if the costs for the additional areas of service are included in these figures.
Late adds to the agenda:
Memorandum includes Brief Staff Comment on CAC Advisory: Key Points for Board Consideration
Local Plan Section B: Governance and Administration
Local Plan Section B (redlined): Governance and Administration
SRCS has expressed interest in becoming its own SELPA following recent funding structure changes, but over the past year there has been no clear implementation plan developed to support a successful transition. Instead, the process now appears rushed, driven by an approaching deadline. SRTA members recognize this pattern and are concerned that, given existing demands, members cannot absorb the additional burden of this shift.
The district has indicated that it is currently awaiting cost estimates for the services that will need to be contracted out. Given the scale of this transition, it would greatly benefit the district to develop and follow a multi-year SELPA formation plan. Before moving forward, the district should ensure that it is in the strongest position possible and has the support of both the public and staff. Strengthening districtwide systems would be a critical and advisable first step.
SRTA members are certain that if we become our own SELPA the workload will require additional district level administrators, which is denied by those in charge. Current positions are already overwhelmed with their workload. There is no way they can adequately take on this additional work.
Of particular concern is the retirement of John Fischer. There is no expectation that SRCS will be able to hire someone who can match his SELPA knowledge. Having someone inexperienced establishing a SELPA while simultaneously maneuvering through all the planned changes to the Special Services program which requires further streamlining and system development seems destined for failure.
Any decision of this magnitude should be phased in and implemented with clear evaluation metrics and a commitment to continuous, transparent review—so its effectiveness can be verified and adjustments made if it falls short of intended outcomes.
H. 5. Charter School Calendar
H. 5.a. Public Comment on Charter School Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on the G2 agenda are addressed at this time.
H. 5.b. (Discussion) Board Role for Dependent Charter Schools
The Board’s responsibilities as both authorizer and governing board of dependent charter schools will be discussed, including potential talking points:
The distinction between district policy oversight and charter autonomy granted in an approved charter petition
Oversight of academic performance, fiscal management, transparency, and compliance with charter commitments and state law
Clear communication channels between charter leadership, district administration, and the Board
Best practices for maintaining separation between district governance decisions and charter program autonomy
The role of charter petitions, annual reports, and renewal processes in guiding oversight
SRCS is long overdue in establishing transparent policies and processes for our dependent charter schools so that they may be treated equitably.
There has been confusion over who gets to decide what. What is up to the board, the district office, or the site?
There is also confusion about financial obligations. Who sets the budget for the charter schools? What does SRCS charge the charters, and how are those figures calculated?
Who controls enrollment and waitlists? Who decides who is allowed to transfer into a school? Who chooses what classes are offered and which positions are staffed?
J. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Feb 25, 2026 Minutes and Supporting Documents
March 5, 2026 Minutes and FMP Presentation
March 11, 2026 Minutes and Supporting Documents
K. BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
L. INFORMATION ITEMS
L.1. Future Board Discussion Items
Future Agenda Items (tentative):
- Public Hearing: CCLA Charter Renewal Petition (delayed from Jan 2026) (April 8, 2026)
- Is this charter extending to 12th grade, to allow it to stay on the Cook Campus? What will that change entail in practice?
- Public Hearing: SRACS Charter Renewal Petition (delayed from Jan 2026) (April 8, 2026)
- Will this include a material revision request as extending to fourth grade was under consideration? Will all communication with RVUSD be shared in this item?
- Use of Mobile Devices Presentation (delayed from Sept 2025, and again from Jan 2026) (April 8, 2026)
- Second Read: BP 5131.8 Use of Mobile Devices (April 22, 2026)
- 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.
- Approval of Classified Employee Calendar (April 8, 2026)
- Approval of Instructional Calendar (April 8, 2026)
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
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.
– Communication plan.
Prak – Turf fields maintenance level report
– update on sports at MS level
– Info about a non voting teacher on the board.
Kirby – add an assistant wrestling coach for women?
– Copies of the panorama and youth truth surveys.
DeLaTorre- facility fee, possible reductions?
-Waitlist plan- May is too late.
– Data on waiver’s impact on graduation rates.
– Info on how we identify College and Career readiness.
Jenkins – Update on transportation for middle school sports
– projected enrollment for next year.
– marketing plan update as committed to last year.
- Approval of Mental Health Coordinator Position (delayed from Feb 2026)
- 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
L.3. Non-Public School/Non-Public Agency Contract Update
Information is attached concerning contracts with Non-Public Agencies and Non-Public Schools, serving our students with IEPs. Updated information on Non-Public School contract changes. No changes to report at this time in Non-Public Agencies.
Non-Public Schools List 155 students, 16 vendors, for a total of $9,002,476, at an average of $58,080 per student.
Non-Public Agency List 206 staff, 10 vendors, for a total of $5,212,374, at an average of $25,302 per staff. SRCS starts aides at $21 per hour. These agencies charge SRCS a minimum of $45 per hour.
L.4. Information on Current and Projected Enrollment / Waitlists
Update Contains current year enrollment, capacity, and enrollments for next year. There is data on transfers including their disposition.
SRTA members appreciate this information. We hope more is coming.
L.5. Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting Schedule
- Monday, April 6, 2026
- Monday, May 4, 2026
- Monday, June 1, 2026
L.6. Dates of Future Special Board Meetings and Study Sessions
- 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.
M. Adjournment