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 Appointment / Discussion, Position: Superintendent
B.2. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
B.3. Conference With Labor Negotiator (Name of designated rep attending: Dr. Vicki Zands (SRCS); name of organization: SRTA, CSEA 75, Teamsters Union
B.4. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Title of employee being reviewed: Superintendent, Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Vice Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors, Coordinators)
C. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION (6 pm)
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.
EdJoin shows a total of seventy-two current postings for two-hundred seventy jobs in SRCS. There are fifty-one certificated opening postings (forty more than last month). There are a few positions posted for next year. There are fifty current classified postings for two-hundred nineteen job openings (fifty more than the last meeting.) There are five certificated and no classified management positions posted.
We bid farewell to Madeline Daniels (HSMS) who is resigning at the end of the year, taking four years of service and experience with them.
We bid a fond farewell to William Huntsinger (MCHS), Carla Forchini (MHS), and Linda McCoy-Hernandez (SLES) who are all retiring at the end of the year, after eighty-seven years of combined service to our students and families. We are grateful for their service, and wish them all the best!
Changes to classified staff includes four new hires and one retirement. They leave taking with them fifteen years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
Summer positions are opened for inhouse applicants. There are at least 38 certificated positions available. High School Credit Recovery will be at MHS from 6/11 to 7/2 and from 7/7 to 7/24. Pay is $60.73 per hour. Elementary jobs are posted for Charter sites.
458 students utilized this program last year at a cost of $142 per student. Where is the analysis of how this program impacts future learning? Do students learn enough Math 1 to have a foundation for success in Math 2?
3
Shared Plate Strategies
$18,615.00
This contract signifies the end of co-operative bidding with regional districts to a bid for just SRCS.
Last time SRCS was moving classrooms, there was a complaint from another moving and storage company about the inability to bid on the projects. It was stated by management at a board meeting that these contracts would be spread among different companies over time. It appears the same company is being utilized again.
F.7. Approval of the Contract for the Hidden Valley Elementary School Exterior Paint Project
F.26. Approval of the Santa Rosa City Schools 2026-2027 Instructional Calendar
1. 180 instructional days
2. Two (2) Professional Development Days on:
August 11, 2026 – Staff Professional Development Day (non-student)
August 12, 2026 – Staff Professional Development Day (non-student)
3. Four (4) non-instructional workdays on:
August 13, 2026 – Work Day Principal-Directed Non-Instructional (non-student)
August 14, 2026 – Work Day Staff-Directed Non-Instructional (non-student)
December 18, 2026 – Teacher Workday/Pupil Holiday: Secondary only
June 4, 2027 – Teacher Workday/Pupil Holiday: Elementary only
4. 185 Certificated workdays
5. The first instructional day for students will be on:
Monday, August 17, 2026
6. The last instructional day for students will be on:
Thursday, June 3, 2027 – Elementary only
Friday, June 4, 2027 – Secondary only
7. Two (2) Emergency Closure Days (non-workday, non-student if not used)
Friday, April 30, 2027
Friday, May 28, 2027
For the complete draft 2026-2027 Instructional Calendar, see attached.
Consideration
This is the initial Board activity on the draft 2026-2027 Instructional Calendar presented herein.
The draft 2026-2027 Instructional calendar is pending ratification by the Classified School Employee Association and the Santa Rosa Teachers Association membership.
SRTA members are concerned that there are no implementation plans for the programmatic cuts. There are no details about the impacts of these changes, or the expectations for who will do what. With increased class sizes and decreased student support positions, members are prepared to defend against scope creep. When we are asked to do something, there needs to be a trade for something we are no longer required to do.
G.2. c. (Action) Approval of the Facilities Master Plan (FMP) Update
Planning Sheet This list shows some of the projects from the FMP, that equal spending all of the bond funds and the reimbursement funds from the state. Is this the actual planned projects list? What is planned to be covered with the $10 million deferred maintenance?
SRTA members notice the projected enrollment increases between now and 2030 and again for 2035.
Slide 13 of the presentation shows 624 community responses to the community survey. The elementary responses are highly concentrated at two elementary sites (PTES and SRCSA) and the high school responses were significantly lower at CCLA and EAHS. How did the district elicit responses to this survey? The disparity in responses suggests that district outreach could be improved to make results more equitable.
G.3. Charter School Calendar
G.3. a. Public Comment
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on H.3. agenda are addressed at this time
G.3. b. Public Hearing: CCLA Charter Renewal
Staff will post its findings and recommendations no later than April 28, 2026. The Board will not take action at the Public Hearing, but will take action to grant or deny the renewal within 30 days after the Public Hearing.
The charter extends the student population through twelfth grade, offering dual enrollment and/or independent study to high school students.
Financials (Running at a $1million per year profit.)
SRTA recognizes the improvement in dashboard rankings for CCLA.
G.3. c. (Discussion) Current Charter School Strategies Overview
Each site will have the opportunity to discuss the targeted strategies it has developed or is continuing to develop to strengthen academic outcomes, enhance student engagement, and support enrollment stability and growth.
Highlighting well-funded programs at our charter schools while dismantling those at our non-charter sites feels like a slap in the face to the students and staff bearing the brunt of recent cuts.
SRTA members recognize that our charter schools are currently in a more stable financial position than the district as a whole. As a result, these schools are not experiencing the same level of cuts impacting students at non-charter sites—creating clear inequities. Charters can choose how to spend their LCAP funds, and can protect their students from K–3 class size reductions, loss of restorative practices, and loss of counseling services.
As this disparity becomes more widely understood, it raises an important question: why wouldn’t families consider transferring to these sites to preserve access to smaller class sizes and essential student supports?
Why are these schools financially stable? Is this because our district expenses are top heavy? Is it because the District is not charging charter schools the appropriate fees?
G.4. Student Services Calendar
No Public Comment is listed for this item
G.4. (Discussion / Possible Action) School Site Capacity and Waitlist Study
Presentation Additional historical trends and context will be included in the presentation to support a more comprehensive understanding of capacity and inform future planning.
How do strategic priorities of SRCS impact this discussion?
Will data be included about the decisions that have been made by families that have not been allowed to transfer? There appears to be an assumption that they stay with their neighborhood school, creating a zero-impact sum. To what degree is this actually the case?
Is the 10% marker historically defensible? What percentage of students move into neighborhoods and enroll during the school year?
The information for JMES is almost completely missing on slide “Campus Capacity – 2026-2027: Draft–Not Complete”. This is especially concerning because the decision not to keep Steele Lane open was made in part because of district claims regarding the capacity of JMES for the 2026-2027 school year and its ability to house the 150+ SL students assigned to JMES next year. The district’s numbers regarding the capacity of JMES have been wildly different at each meeting they have been presented to the board. One unsubstantiated number presented on March 11th during the SL closure board item claimed that the JMES’ capacity would be close to 700 students, nearly 100 above the theoretical capacity stated in the Facility Master Plan (FMP). How can the school board make informed decisions without accurate information?
G.4. (Action) Run-Off Election for the 2026 CSBA Delegate Assembly
Child Nutrition Services (CNS) Update (April 22, May 13, 2026)
Approval of Classified Employee Calendar (April 8, April 22, May 13 2026)
Approval of Instructional Calendar (April 8, April 22, May 13 2026)
Approval of CCLA Charter Renewal Petition (May 13, 2026)
Approval of SRACS Charter Renewal Petition (May 13, 2026)
Discussion on Athletics Update (May 13, 2026)
Final Layoff Notices Resolution (May 13, 2026)
Deferred Maintenance and Facilities Update (May 27, 2026)
Third Interim Budget Report & Governor’s May Revise (May 27, 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?
– 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), Requesting 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
Long standing request for site budgets including all sources as well as enrollment and unduplicated numbers.
J.3. Board Subcommittee Meeting Schedule
Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting Schedule for 2026:
Monday, May 4, 2026
Monday, June 1, 2026
Board Policy Subcommittee Schedule for 2026:
Thursday, April 23, 2026
Thursday, June 18, 2026
1, 2026
J.4. Dates of Future Special Board Meetings and Study Sessions
Friday, May 15, 2026 Special Board Meeting, Superintendent Search
SRTA members are appreciative of this transparency.
List of contracts with Non-Public Agencies and Non-Public Schools, serving our students with IEPs. This is a grand total of $15,752,594.84.
$6,647,292 of this is for 234 Aides, Behavior Techs and LVNs that should be in house hires.
Non-Public School $9,571,368.24 for 160 students, averaging $59,821.05 per student.
Non-Public Agency $8,370,217.42 for 275 staff, averaging $30,437.15 per staff.
SRTA members support students getting the services they need. A review of the demographics of students receiving these services seems prudent. There must be a system in place to ensure this is done in an equitable way.
How can the tide be seriously turned to limit outside contracts for positions that should be in house hires? The most recent pay raise was a small help, but these contracts show us paying far more to outside agencies than it would cost to hire.
J.6. Williams Settlement Quarterly Report
There was one report found not to be valid and is marked as resolved.
“Complaints were filed with schools in the district during the quarter indicated above. The following chart summarizes the nature and resolution of these complaints. Copies of the complaint and the district’s written response will be submitted along with this report.”
The copy of the complaint and district response for the complaint are missing from this report.
BOARD FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE | 04/06/2026 – 03:30 PM Hybrid Format
Santa Rosa City Schools District Office (110 Stony Point Road, Suite 210 Santa Rosa, Ca. 95401)
The meeting begins when many SRCS employees and parents are still at work, unable to participate. Comments are only allowed in person.
3. DISCUSSION / ACTION
There are no attachments for these discussion items, so they are being considered without any referenceable data or details.
a. (Discussion) Communication and Framework Around Implementation of Budget Solutions
Provide a clear framework for implementing Board-approved budget solutions, outlining timelines, decision-making guidelines, stakeholder involvement, evaluation criteria, and monitoring—ensuring a transparent, structured approach aligned with the District’s priorities and long-term financial stability.
This item is intended to address a longtime void. It is unclear how much progress is expected on this item, with no proposed draft to launch the discussion.
b. (Discussion) SELPA Update
Executive Director Fischer will provide updated information about the status of SELPA formation, and the timeline going forward.
SRCS recently hired a consultant to evaluate Special Services and provide recommendations. Gillaspie identified major gaps in SRCS’s special education system, including lack of leadership, coherent structure, procedural guidance, training, and accountability. He recommended a comprehensive, multi-year implementation plan with clear systems, oversight, and infrastructure.
While SRCS has taken some initial steps—such as forming a task force, beginning procedural work, and proposing coaching supports—progress has been limited, fragmented, and largely conceptual. The task force has not produced a roadmap or system-level changes, procedural development remains incomplete and voluntary, and staff continue to report inconsistent communication, unclear guidance, and lack of training.
The district has also moved toward inclusion and SELPA formation without first establishing the necessary systems, compliance safeguards, and service continuum. Staff report ongoing uncertainty about legal compliance, IEP practices, and where to seek support, while key elements like MTSS, accountability frameworks, and interagency coordination remain underdeveloped.
Overall, the core issue is not primarily fiscal but structural: SRCS lacks the cohesive systems, infrastructure, and implementation capacity needed to ensure consistent, legally compliant special education services before taking on expanded responsibilities.
SRTA members are united with the concerns raised by the CAC. SRCS is not in a position to successfully implement its own SELPA.
c. (Discussion/Possible Action) 7-11 Surplus Property Impacts
Receive information regarding the 7-11 Committee’s discussions and preliminary perspectives related to the potential disposition of surplus property and the allowable use of proceeds statutory requirements, and the District’s long-term financial and facilities strategy prior to formal recommendations being presented to the full Board.
d. (Discussion) Long Term Planning
Discuss developing a comprehensive, multi-year financial planning framework that promotes fiscal stability, aligns resources with district priorities, and ensures long-term sustainability. This includes establishing consistent reporting on implementation plan progress, planning for and maintaining a 10% reserve level in accordance with best practices, and creating a structured process for evaluating and incorporating future costs, obligations, and programmatic priorities into the district’s budget.
SRTA members understand the desire for 10% reserves. However in the present moment, the idea of further sustained cuts to create a reserve seem unwise. SRCS needs systemic stabilization before building up a reserve. The district can not continue to exist if it is repelling families, and eroding enrollment.
e. (Discussion) Transparency for Fiscal Consent Items
Establish a clear, consistent process to evaluate the fiscal impact of proposed programs before Board approval, ensuring decisions are financially viable, sustainable, and aligned with the district’s budget.
This includes early fiscal review, standardized cost summaries, alignment with current and multi-year budgets, identification of ongoing financial commitments, clear funding sources, and transparent communication to support informed decision-making.
This item also intends to address a longtime void. It is unclear how much progress is expected on this item with no proposed draft to start the discussion.
B.3. Conference With Labor Negotiator (Name of designated rep attending: Dr. Vicki Zands (SRCS); name of organization: SRTA CSEA 75)
B.4. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Title of employee being reviewed: Superintendent, Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Vice Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors, Coordinators)
C. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION (5:00 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. 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.
EdJoin shows a total of fifty-six current postings for one hundred eighty-three jobs in SRCS. There are eleven certificated opening postings (one more than last month). CTE are the only positions posted for next year. There are forty-five current classified postings for one hundred sixty-nine job openings (three less than the last meeting.) There are three certificated and no classified management positions posted.
SRTA members wonder about the three identical CTE jobs posted for three different high schools. What are the transparent parameters for having the same course at multiple sites versus only allowing a course at one or two sites?
We bid farewell to Gem Santiago Ramirez (WAE), Ryan Branche (MCHS), Glenda Lowery (CCLA) who resign at the end of the year taking seven years of service and experience with them.
We bid a fond farewell to Joseph Davis (MHS) who is retiring at the end of the year, after eight years of service to our students and families.
Changes to classified staff includes two hires and two resignations. They leave taking with them three and one-third months of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
SRTA members are concerned about the expense to make DeSoto Hall middle school student friendly. The FMP identified more facility needs than bond funds could provide before the 7-12 consolidation idea. There has not been a clear and transparent review of the financial impact of the current 7-12 mergers. When do we pause and consider reopening Slater with SRJH and MJH students combined?
F.7. Approval of Updated Resolution 2025/26-47 Authorizing Personnel to Sign Orders on District Funds Accounts
SRCS is unable to retain a stable staff in Fiscal Services. The change in personnel requires an update to account signatures.
With SRACS existing inside RVUSD boundaries, is it now necessary to obtain their permission to continue to have the school at its current site? How is that being addressed?
G.2. Student Services Calendar
G.2. a. Public Comment on Finance Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on G.2. agenda are addressed at this time
G.2. b. (Discussion) Mobile Devices on Campus Update and Presentation
This discussion item is designed to share community engagement in the Cell Phone policy discussion since Spring, 2025.
California’s Phone-Free School Act (AB 3216), signed in 2024, mandates that all school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education adopt a policy restricting or prohibiting student smartphone use by July 1, 2026. Policies must limit phone use during school hours, with exceptions for emergencies, health needs, or teacher permission.
The datais clear that social media has a negative impact on academic performance.
The Stop It App data has no parameters, which impairs the usefulness of this information. It looks like about 200 uses were recorded. Which sites was this for, over what time period?
G.2. c. (Discussion/Possible Action) Second Read of Board Policy 5131.8: Mobile Communication Devices
G.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
G.3. b. (Action) Second Read of Local Plan for Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Formation
No cost savings have been included in budget projections to date. If approved, the actual financial impact will be updated for the third interim report. Conservative estimates show savings exceeding $250,000.
SRCS recently hired a consultant to evaluate Special Services and provide recommendations. Gillaspie identified major gaps in SRCS’s special education system, including lack of leadership, coherent structure, procedural guidance, training, and accountability. He recommended a comprehensive, multi-year implementation plan with clear systems, oversight, and infrastructure.
While SRCS has taken some initial steps—such as forming a task force, beginning procedural work, and proposing coaching supports—progress has been limited, fragmented, and largely conceptual. The task force has not produced a roadmap or system-level changes, procedural development remains incomplete and voluntary, and staff continue to report inconsistent communication, unclear guidance, and lack of training.
The district has also moved toward inclusion and SELPA formation without first establishing the necessary systems, compliance safeguards, and service continuum. Staff report ongoing uncertainty about legal compliance, IEP practices, and where to seek support, while key elements like MTSS, accountability frameworks, and interagency coordination remain underdeveloped.
Overall, the core issue is not primarily fiscal but structural: SRCS lacks the cohesive systems, infrastructure, and implementation capacity needed to ensure consistent, legally compliant special education services before taking on expanded responsibilities.
SRTA members are united with the concerns raised by the CAC. SRCS is not in a position to successfully implement its own SELPA.
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.
G.3. c. (Action) Second Read of Local Plan for Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Formation
CAC Advisory Statement The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) found significant gaps in clarity, transparency, and planning. Key concernsinclude 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.
$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.
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.
G.3.d. (Action) Approval of Proposed Job Description for Executive Director of SELPA and Special Services
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.
SRTA members rally around the need for SRCS to hire someone who has the necessary knowledge foundation to step in and run Special Services, implementing the many systemic changes recommended by Gillespie and identified by members in a recent survey. Adding to those requirements someone who has experience running a SELPA seems like looking for a unicorn. How can someone with that experience be attracted to SRCS?
This is not the time to hire someone who is expected to learn on the job. The tolerance for that is gone.
G.3.e. (Action) Second Read and Approval of Board Policy 0430: Comprehensive Local Plan For Special Education
Approval of Classified Employee Calendar (April 22, 2026, delayed from April 8, 2026)
Approval of Instructional Calendar (April 22, 2026, delayed from April 8, 2026)
Approval of CCLA Charter Renewal Petition (May 13, 2026)
Approval of SRACS Charter Renewal Petition (May 13, 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), Requesting 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.4. Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting Schedule
Monday, May 4, 2026
Monday, June 1, 2026
J.5. Dates of Future Special Board Meetings and Study Sessions
Friday, May 15, 2026 Special Board Meeting, Superintendent Search
SRTA members are appreciative of this transparency.
J.6. Updated AR 1220
This clarifies that this committee is not subject to the Brown Act. This allows the district to not provide information for the meeting ahead of time like the 72 hours required for board meetings.
SRTA members would like SRCS to have more focus, allowing the capacity to provide complete information ahead of time in agendas to this and other committees, even if not specifically required by law. This allows meetings to be far more productive as participants have time to review items and information prior to the meetings.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
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 concernsinclude 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.
$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
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?
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.
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.
This session will emphasize strategic alignment, equity and inclusion, and feasibility within the District’s capacity and resources.
Purpose and Session Norms (5 minutes)
Framing Priority 2: Safety and Security (10 minutes)
Key Outcomes and Goal Considerations (25 minutes)
Synthesis and Next Steps (8 minutes)
Closing Reflections (2 minutes)
SRTA Members are concerned that the proposed elimination of programs and positions will severely impact the level of safety on our campuses. Student behaviors severely impact safety on campus.
“Educators say students’ behavior outbursts have grown more serious, according to a 2024 EdWeek Research Center study. Most teachers (68%) say they have experienced verbal abuse from their students, such as being yelled at or verbally threatened. About 1 in 5 say this happens at least a few times a month.
“Educators were clear about changes they believe would address student behavior issues, including: Smaller class sizes; better disciplinary support from administrators; more co-teachers in classrooms with larger numbers of high-needs students; better administrative communication with parents; mental health professionals who have time to provide more services; more paraprofessionals; and clear cellphone policies for the whole building or district.” The Survey Says: ‘We’re at a Crisis Point’ | NEA
SRCS and SRTA negotiated a new agreement around safety in our contract. Article 8 ( SRCS/SRTA Article 8- Safety.pdf ) establishes the District’s obligation to maintain safe workplaces, clear reporting procedures, emergency protections, staff support after violent incidents, strong safety planning, and healthy facility conditions for both employees and students. One of the biggest changes was the agreement to a District Safety Committee that helps develop and review major data and safety plans, including:
Comprehensive School Safety Plans (CSSP)
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP)
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP)
The agreement is for the District Safety Committee to meet at least six times per year and analyze safety data. SRCS is not likely to meet this commitment this year.
D. RECONVENE TO REGULAR OPEN SESSION (6:00 p.m.)
E. REPORTS (Bargaining Units, Sup, and Board)
F. 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.
G. 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.
SRTA is working on a grievance at Lincoln Elementary regarding attempts to eliminate SDC classrooms and to move students without adhering to contractual obligations. This situation raised concerns regarding student placements without teacher consultation, class size limits, and scheduled prep periods being impacted without teacher knowledge, relating to Articles 14.4, 14.5.1, and 6.4.3.2.
The SRTA Negotiations Team has submitted several information requests and is awaiting the District’s response so that SRTA can bargain the impacts of proposed changes.
SRTA encourages members to reach out if contract violations are occurring at other sites so we can provide support and address concerns as they arise.
EdJoin shows a total of sixty current postings for one-hundred eighty-eight jobs in SRCS. There are eleven certificated opening postings (one more than last month) for eleven teaching positions and one other certificated position. Postings include openings at FACS for next year. There are forty-four current classified postings for one-hundred seventy-two job openings (twelve more than the last meeting.) There are five certificated and no classified management positions posted.
We bid farewell to Florian Mahe (FACS), Nicolette Elliott (HVES), Juan Trejo Gonzalez(SRHS) and Ellisa Beamish (MCHS) who resign at the end of the year taking seventeen years of service and experience with them.
We welcome Simon Ahiabley (MCHS) and Sabbina Addae Donkor (RHS.) As of 2/18 our international hires are on board. Students have had rotating subs since August.
Changes to classified staff includes one rehire, two resignations and one retirement. They leave taking with them thirty-seven years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
Is the district pursuing reimbursements from the manufacturer and installer for current fields that did not perform as promised? Are there safeguards in place to ensure proper manufacturing and installation of these replacement fields to avoid having students play on unsafe fields?
Is there a plan for track surfaces that require replacing too?
Why are LaCrosse (a sport we don’t offer) markings included on the fields, while not including Flag Football markings (a sport our students are currently playing)?
G.6. Approval of Asset Purchase Agreement for the Elsie Allen High School Solar Power System
This purchases the older rooftop solar panels that were part of a 2008 PPA that is on year seventeen (17) of its twenty (20) year life.
G.7. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Lease-Leaseback Agreement with Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. for the ABES Early Childhood Education Modernization Project
SRCS received a GMP proposal dated March 3, 2026, in the amount of Five Million Four Hundred Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Dollars ($5,404,220.00). District staff has reviewed the proposed GMP and determined it to be fair and reasonable.
G.10. Approval of Contract with Keystone Therapy & Education, Inc.
This contract is to deliver school-based therapy services to students with Medi-Cal or private insurance coverage. Services will be billed directly through the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative.
No direct cost for the District.
Contract The contract states that Santa Rosa City Schools staff will continue to provide behavioral health services to uninsured students and students whose families decline insurance-based billing.
SRTA members appreciate the efforts to offer our students the services of School Based Therapists.
How will the district provide SBT services to students who are underinsured or whose families decline insurance-based billing? This provider will not cover these students. The contract states SRCS will provide coverage for these students. What is the plan to do that?
Services are said to be on site, but require wifi. Does this mean they will be providing tele-health? How would this be safely provided on site?
The Wellness Center Model requires a Licensed Wellness Coordinator to provide oversight. The current SRCS model seems to just have Wellness Coaches. These coaches are not licensed clinicians. A single clinician can not adequately supervise multiple wellness centers.
There is confusion as to how this contractor can provide these services funded solely on the CYBHI model. If this is feasible, why is SRCS not able to fund our own SBT program through this funding source?
When Social Advocates for Youth (SAY) provided contracted counseling services to our students there were many issues. Having a therapist that was not a district employee at the site caused difficulties in communication about who was being served. There was not a functioning team supporting the students. It takes a village, and that was not possible as the therapists worked in silos.
G.11. Approval of an MOU with Aldea Children & Family Services
This contract is to provide no-cost, school-based substance use disorder prevention and behavioral health services to students at Santa Rosa Junior/Senior High School, for the reminder of this school year.
No cost to the district. Aldea will bill third-party payors independently, preserving limited district resources. This is a pilot program expected to build to scale.
How will this contract be assessed before scaling up? What metrics will be used?
H. BOARD POLICY UPDATES / FIRST READ
H.1. First Read of Board Policy 0430: Comprehensive Local Plan For Special Education
This is board policy to authorize the new Special Education Local Plan Area (“SELPA”) configuration for SRCS.
BP redline 0430 begins “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.”
The Community Advisory Committee members have expressed concern about SRCS becoming its own SELPA. There are concerns about leadership’s capacity to take on this monumental task. There are concerns about the information provided to the committee, the inability to meet timelines, and the lack of follow through to address concerns. And there is an overriding concern that SRCS is currently making choices which do not provide an appropriate education to students with disabilities.
A financial presentation by district personnel showing the increased revenue by switching to our own SELPA did not present information that convinced CAC members that we would net any additional funds once the administrative costs were subtracted. If this has no financial purpose, why take on this huge lift especially when special education leadership is in flux.
While becoming our own SELPA may potentially provide financial benefits to the district in the long term, the current timeline raises significant concerns. Because of the speed at which the district is moving, SRCS stated they would need to continue contracting with SELPA and SCOE for a number of critical services, including—but not limited to—ADR, the Adaptive Technology Center, medically fragile programs, and itinerant services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Vision. At this time, the district does not have the staffing, facilities, or program infrastructure to provide many of these services independently within the proposed timeline.
During the CAC meeting it was stated that medically fragile students the district had hoped to bring back from SCOE will not be able to be safely served in district next year due to significant safety concerns. With long-term planning and program development this may become possible, but it is not feasible in the immediate term. The cost of contracting for these services is not insignificant and could significantly reduce any projected savings for the 2026–2027 school year, likely causing special education expenses to increase rather than decrease.
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.
I. Discussion/Action Items
I.1. Finance Calendar
I.1. a. Public Comment on Finance Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on I1 agenda are addressed at this time
I.1. b. (Discussion/Action) Reconsider the Closure of Steele Lane Elementary School
Potential savings as reflected in the School Closure Advisory Committee report (unrestricted only) $1,162,341. Should the decision be reversed, careful fiscal analysis would be required to revise the assumptions included in the budget projections.
SRTA members are certain that closing a site is disruptive to the community and has a significant negative impact on student learning in subsequent years. Especially when the students are unduplicated. These are precisely the students we are charged to go the extra mile to protect.
This board has asked that SRCS make decisions based on data, and that decisions through an evaluation process to ensure metrics are met in a way worthy of continuing efforts. This decision to close and consolidate sites is a premier example of where this type of change to our systemic process is called for. Stop and evaluate the changes that have been made. How have they impacted student performance? Has enrollment been as expected? What savings are actually realized? How does that compare to the expectation? Building community trust in this board lies in changing practices to become more transparent and accountable. Start here. Now.
The stated $1.1 million in unrestricted savings seems an exaggeration especially since the promised $8.6 million in savings from previous closures has yet to be verified. The savings quoted on page 52 in the attachment include eliminating a principal ($312,962), a library tech ($24,072) and the plant ($312,962) for a total savings of $714,016 as other items have already been eliminated, or follow the students to other sites. There would also be an offset to savings from the addition of bussing at $100,000 per route (currently 3 routes serve Steele Lane students).
The city of Santa Rosa addressed the road conditions in the fall of 2024, so they currently are better than many other elementary sites situated on or near busy streets. There is now a protected loading zone for bus parking and parent drop off. Traffic flow during drop off and pick up has been greatly slowed, increasing student safety.
The facility master plan (2023) for Steele Lane includes a significant upgrade to parking and a student drop off loop. This would be a much better use of the $7 million recently approved to put temporary portables on other school sites to house Steele Lane students for just a couple of years.
The campus houses one of the larger elementary enrollments at more than 420 students, and has significant room to grow as the relocation of LELA to the ABES site opens up classroom availability. Additionally the site’s 8.95 acres provides 3-4 additional acres for new construction which is rare on other elementary sites. There is no earthquake fault concern at this site allowing for new construction on the entire site. Keeping Steele Lane allows the district far greater flexibility for future facility choices.
I.1. c. (Action) Approval of 2025-26 Second Interim Fiscal Report with Positive Certification
“Positive” means the district is able to meet financial obligations for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. There will be a Third Interim report brought to the Board in May, which will include budget updates through April 30.
Additional attachments with the remaining details will be uploaded prior to the meeting.
SRCS stated that the actual cost savings from closures and consolidations would be included in the first interim. Then when it was not, they stated that this would be included with the second interim report. Current year expenses are tracked in the interim reports with projections for annual totals. Not having transparency around these cost savings further deteriorates trust.
The 5000s (Services and Other Operating Expenses) were also slated to be shared in this report. They continue to represent approximately 26% of the budget.
SRTA members are concerned. It seems like expenses have been denied this year due to budget concerns, but these savings are not obvious in this report. In fact, there are minimal changes from the first interim. General fund expenses are projected to exceed income by $11 million dollars.
The stabilization plan included recapturing $19.9 million in the General Fund by reassigning prior-year expenses that had been charged to the General Fund to applicable restricted funding sources. That does not appear to be completed by this report. There is an expected $6.5 million transfer shown, and a $1.9 million restatement. That brings the annual budget to a total deficit of $3 million from the $14 million beginning balance, leaving an ending balance of $11 million which is sufficient to cover the $8 million reserve requirement.
I.1. d.(Action) Resolution 2025/26-63 Authorizing Expansion of the 7-11 Advisory Committee for Surplus Property
The expansion will include the following school sites: Steele Lane ES, Hilliard Comstock MS, and Herbert Slater MS.
Phase 1: Committee Formation October 2025 – December 2026
1. Board Resolution – Board adopts a resolution to form a 7-11 Committee and defines purpose, scope, and membership composition.
2. Appointment of Members – Staff recruits applicants; the Board appoints members (7–11 members total, representing community groups). A staff liaison and legal counsel are assigned.
Phase 2: Orientation & ResearchJanuary 2026 – February 2026
3. Committee Orientation – Overview of the Education Code, property background, demographics, and facility data; the committee elects a chair and sets a meeting schedule.
4. Data Collection & Review – Staff provides enrollment projections, property valuations, maintenance costs, facility master plan, and community needs data.
Phase 3: Community Engagement & Deliberation March – April 2026
5. Review of Data – Committee analyzes all background materials; may conduct site visits.
6. Public Hearing(s) – Hold at least one public hearing to gather community input per Ed Code §17389.
7. Deliberation – Committee reviews feedback and finalizes its preliminary recommendations.
Phase 4: Report & Recommendation May 2026 – June 2026
8. Draft Report – Staff assists in preparing a written report outlining findings and recommendations (retain, lease, or declare surplus).
9. Adoption of Final Report – Committee votes to adopt and forward its report to the Board.
10. Board Presentation & Action – Committee presents the report; the Board considers and may adopt recommendations via resolution.
SRTA members know the best decisions are made with the best information. We support providing this committee with all requested information.
Where are the discussions happening about the long term programmatic vision for the district and how properties fit into that vision if not in this committee? If it is not this committee, then this committee needs to know the vision resulting from this work. What happened to the idea of relocating RHS to allow the program room to grow? And where will SRCS establish an alternative middle school program?
I.2. Human Resources Calendar
I.2.a. Public Comment on Educational Services Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on the G2 agenda are addressed at this time.
I.2.b. (Action) Revision to 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”)
The elimination of Particular Kinds of Service (PKS) at the last meeting included several positions that seem difficult to eliminate as those credentials were listed on the skipping criteria. This revision removes three credentials from the skipping criteria.
With the elimination of a specific science or math credential no longer qualifying someone to be skipped, there is now a prioritization over seniority dates for those positions rather than credentials.
This means someone with a supplemental math credential can be retained over someone with a full single subject math credential. The supplemental credential only allows for the teaching of a middle school or freshmen level course. Our high schools can not operate without fully credentialed teachers to teach the upper level courses.
I. 3. Charter School Calendar
I.3.a. Public Comment on Educational Services Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on the G2 agenda are addressed at this time.
I.2.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 DLT -Waitlist plan- May is too late.NC – Communication plan.
NC – Communication plan.
MK – Wants copies of the panorama and youth truth survey.
SJ – projected enrollment for next year.
DP – Can we have a non voting teacher on the board?
SJ – marketing plan as committed to last year?
DLT – Data on waiver’s impact on graduation rates. Info on how we identify College and Career readiness.
MK – iReady data
L. INFORMATION ITEMS
L.1. Future Board Discussion Items
Future Agenda Items:
Public Hearings: CCLA and SRACS Charter Renewals
Approval of Updated Facilities Master Plan (FMP)
Update on Secondary Redesign Work
Presentation/Discussion Specialized Programs
Approval of SELPA Local Plan
Approval of the Instructional and Classified Calendars
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.
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
Approval of Mental Health Coordinator Position (delayed from Feb 2026)
Discussion of Specialized Program Supports (delayed from Feb 2026)
CCLA Charter Renewal Public Hearing (delayed from Jan 2026)
Is this charter extending to 12th grade, to allow it to stay on the Cook Campus? What will that change entail in practice?
SRACS Charter Renewal Public Hearing (delayed from Jan 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?
Cell Phone Policy Presentation (delayed from Sept 2025, and again from Jan 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.
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.
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
REUNIÓN ORDINARIA DE LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA
Escuelas de la ciudad de Santa Rosa
11 de marzo de 2025
Híbrido: Cámaras del Consejo del Ayuntamiento de Santa Rosa
Tómese el tiempo para revisar la siguiente versión abreviada de la agenda. Haga clic aquí para ver la agenda completa.Tiene enlaces en vivo a muchos artículos con más información. Si desea comentar en el foro sobre los próximos artículos, envíe un correo electrónico aagendacomments@srcs.k12.ca.us. Por favor, copiawearesrta@gmail.comen tu correo electrónico.
Se recomienda a los miembros que asisten en línea que agreguen SRTA al frente de su nombre de cliente de Zoom.
Temas de la sesión cerrada:
A.1. Comentarios públicos sobre los temas de la agenda de sesiones cerradas Para comentar, envíe un correo electrónico a Melanie Martin a mmartinsrcs.k12.ca.us.
Esta es una oportunidad para que los miembros del público hablen con la junta únicamente sobre temas de sesión cerrada.
Sin detalles sobre los temas de la agenda de las sesiones cerradas, es imposible que el público sepa cuándo brindar información sobre los temas que se están revisando.
B.1. Evaluación del desempeño de empleados públicos (Cargo del empleado evaluado: superintendente, superintendente adjunto, superintendente asistente, directores, subdirectores, directores adjuntos, directores, coordinadores)
B.2. Disciplina/Despido/Liberación de Empleados Públicos
B.3. Expulsión de estudiantes (Caso n.° 2025/26-10)
C. SESIÓN DE ESTUDIO: PRIORIDAD 2 SEGURIDAD Y PROTECCIÓN (5:00 pm.)
1. Comentario público sobre la sesión de estudio (1 minuto, solo en línea)
Esta sesión enfatizará la alineación estratégica, la equidad y la inclusión, y la viabilidad dentro de la capacidad y los recursos del Distrito.
Propósito y normas de la sesión (5 minutos)
Prioridad 2: Seguridad y protección (10 minutos)
Consideraciones sobre resultados clave y objetivos (25 minutos)
Síntesis y próximos pasos (8 minutos)
Reflexiones finales (2 minutos)
Los miembros de SRTA están preocupados por la propuesta de eliminar programas y puestos que afectará gravemente la seguridad en nuestros campus. El comportamiento de los estudiantes afecta gravemente la seguridad en el campus.
Los educadores afirman que los arrebatos de comportamiento de los estudiantes se han vuelto más graves, según un estudio del Centro de Investigación EdWeek de 2024. La mayoría de los profesores (68%) afirma haber sufrido abuso verbal por parte de sus estudiantes, como gritos o amenazas verbales. Aproximadamente 1 de cada 5 afirma que esto sucede al menos varias veces al mes.
Los educadores fueron claros sobre los cambios que creen que abordarían los problemas de comportamiento estudiantil, incluyendo: clases con menos alumnos; mejor apoyo disciplinario por parte de los administradores; más co-profesores en aulas con mayor cantidad de estudiantes con necesidades especiales; mejor comunicación administrativa con los padres; profesionales de la salud mental con tiempo para brindar más servicios; más paraprofesionales; y políticas claras sobre el uso de teléfonos celulares para todo el edificio o distrito. La encuesta dice: “Estamos en un punto crítico” | NEA
SRCS y SRTA negociaron un nuevo acuerdo sobre seguridad en nuestro contrato. Artículo 8 (SRCS/SRTA Artículo 8- Seguridad.pdf) establece la obligación del Distrito de mantener lugares de trabajo seguros, procedimientos claros de denuncia, protección en caso de emergencia, apoyo al personal tras incidentes violentos, una sólida planificación de seguridad y condiciones saludables en las instalaciones tanto para empleados como para estudiantes. Uno de los cambios más importantes fue la creación de un Comité de Seguridad del Distrito que ayuda a desarrollar y revisar los principales datos y planes de seguridad, incluyendo:
Planes Integrales de Seguridad Escolar (CSSP)
Programa de Prevención de Lesiones y Enfermedades (IIPP)
Plan de Operaciones de Emergencia (POE)
Plan de prevención de la violencia en el trabajo (WVPP)
El acuerdo estipula que el Comité de Seguridad del Distrito se reunirá al menos seis veces al año para analizar los datos de seguridad. Es poco probable que SRCS cumpla con este compromiso este año.
D. VOLVER A CONVOCAR A LA SESIÓN ABIERTA ORDINARIA (6:00 pm)
E. INFORMES (Unidades de Negociación, Superintendente y Junta)
F. Comentarios públicos sobre temas no incluidos en la agenda y temas de consentimiento
Se invita a los miembros de SRTA a completar las tarjetas azules en la reunión de la junta para hacer comentarios públicos. Los comentarios en línea se han suspendido. La duración de los comentarios será de 60 segundos. En este momento, solo se abordarán los puntos que no están en la agenda, con excepción de los puntos de consentimiento (véase la sección G).
Se solicitan comentarios en la reunión de la junta para aportar la perspectiva de un miembro y compartir experiencias reales del impacto de las políticas y prácticas del distrito en los estudiantes y el personal.
Los oradores se limitan a aquellos en persona (a menos que un miembro de la junta asista en línea).
Los comentarios tienen mayor impacto cuando están bien expresados, compuestos y razonables.
G. ELEMENTOS DE CONSENTIMIENTO
Todos los elementos de consentimiento son aprobados por la Junta en una sola moción, a menos que un miembro de la Junta solicite que un elemento se elimine y se discuta por separado.
SRTA está trabajando en una queja en la Escuela Primaria Lincoln relacionada con los intentos de eliminar aulas de SDC y trasladar a estudiantes sin cumplir con las obligaciones contractuales. Esta situación generó inquietudes sobre la asignación de estudiantes sin consultar a los profesores, los límites de tamaño de las clases y la interrupción de los períodos de preparación programados sin el conocimiento de los profesores, en relación con los Artículos 14.4, 14.5.1 y 6.4.3.2.
El Equipo de Negociaciones de SRTA ha presentado varias solicitudes de información y está esperando la respuesta del Distrito para que SRTA pueda negociar los impactos de los cambios propuestos.
SRTA alienta a los miembros a que se comuniquen si se producen violaciones de contrato en otros sitios para que podamos brindar apoyo y abordar las inquietudes a medida que surjan.
EdJoin Se muestran un total de sesenta ofertas de empleo vigentes para ciento ochenta y ocho puestos en SRCS. Hay once vacantes certificadas (una más que el mes pasado) para once puestos para profesores y una vacante certificada. Las ofertas incluyen vacantes en FACS para el próximo año. Hay cuarenta y cuatro ofertas de empleo clasificadas vigentes para ciento setenta y dos puestos (doce más que en la última reunión). Hay cinco puestos de gestión certificados y ninguna vacante clasificada publicada.
Nos despedimos de Florian Mahe (FACS), Nicolette Elliott (HVES), Juan Trejo Gonzalez (SRHS) y Ellisa Beamish (MCHS) quienes renuncian a fin de año llevándose diecisiete años de servicio y experiencia con ellos.
Damos la bienvenida a Simon Ahiabley (MCHS) y Sabbina Addae Donkor (RHS). Desde el 2/18, nuestros nuevos profesores internacionales se han incorporado. Los estudiantes han tenido suplentes rotativos desde agosto.
Los cambios en el personal clasificado incluyen una recontratación, dos renuncias y una jubilación. Se marchan llevándose consigo treinta y siete años de conocimiento y servicio a nuestro personal y estudiantes.
¿El distrito está solicitando reembolsos al fabricante e instalador por los campos actuales que no funcionaron como se prometió? ¿Existen medidas de seguridad para garantizar la correcta fabricación e instalación de estos campos de reemplazo y evitar que los estudiantes jueguen en campos inseguros?
¿Existe algún plan también para las superficies de las pistas que requieran ser reemplazadas?
¿Por qué se incluyen marcas de LaCrosse (un deporte que no ofrecemos) en los campos, pero no se incluyen marcas de Flag Football (un deporte que nuestros estudiantes practican actualmente)?
G.6. Aprobación del contrato de compra de activos para el sistema de energía solar de la escuela secundaria Elsie Allen
Con esto se adquieren los paneles solares de azotea más antiguos que formaban parte de un PPA de 2008 que se encuentra en el año diecisiete (17) de sus veinte (20) años de vida útil.
Fondo 21, Medida C $280,000
Costo total proyectado para el proyecto $25,000,000
G.7. Aprobación de la Enmienda n.º 1 al Contrato de Arrendamiento con Opción de Retroarrendamiento con Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. para el Proyecto de Modernización de la Educación Infantil de ABES
SRCS recibió una propuesta de GMP con fecha del 3 de marzo de 2026, por un monto de cinco millones cuatrocientos cuatro mil doscientos veinte dólares ($5,404,220.00). El personal del distrito revisó la propuesta de GMP y la consideró justa y razonable.
G.10. Aprobación del contrato con Keystone Therapy & Education, Inc.
Este contrato ofrece servicios de terapia en la escuela a estudiantes con cobertura de Medi-Cal o seguro médico privado. Los servicios se facturarán directamente a través de la Iniciativa de Salud Conductual Infantil y Juvenil.
Sin costo directo para el Distrito.
Contrato El contrato establece que el personal de las Escuelas de la Ciudad de Santa Rosa continuará brindando servicios de salud conductual a los estudiantes sin seguro y a los estudiantes cuyas familias rechazan la facturación basada en el seguro.
Los miembros de SRTA aprecian los esfuerzos por ofrecer a nuestros estudiantes los servicios de terapeutas escolares.
¿Cómo proporcionará el distrito los servicios de SBT a los estudiantes con seguro insuficiente o cuyas familias rechazan la facturación basada en el seguro? Este proveedor no cubrirá a estos estudiantes. El contrato estipula que SRCS les brindará cobertura. ¿Cuál es el plan para lograrlo?
Se dice que los servicios se ofrecen en el sitio, pero requieren wifi. ¿Significa esto que ofrecerán telemedicina? ¿Cómo se prestaría de forma segura en el sitio?
El modelo de Centro de Bienestar requiere la supervisión de un Coordinador de Bienestar Certificado. El modelo actual de SRCS parece contar únicamente con Coaches de Bienestar. Estos coaches no son profesionales clínicos certificados. Un solo profesional clínico no puede supervisar adecuadamente varios centros de bienestar.
Existe confusión sobre cómo este contratista puede prestar estos servicios financiados únicamente con el modelo CYBHI. Si esto es factible, ¿por qué SRCS no puede financiar nuestro propio programa SBT con esta fuente de financiación?
Cuando los Defensores Sociales de la Juventud (SAY) brindaban servicios de consejería contratados a nuestros estudiantes, surgieron muchos problemas. La presencia de un terapeuta que no era empleado del distrito en el centro dificultaba la comunicación sobre quiénes recibían los servicios. No existía un equipo eficaz que apoyara a los estudiantes. Se necesita un equipo comunitario, y eso no era posible porque los terapeutas trabajaban de forma aislada.
G.11. Aprobación de un memorando de entendimiento con Aldea Children & Family Services
Este contrato es para brindar servicios gratuitos, en las escuelas, de prevención de trastornos por uso de sustancias y de salud conductual a los estudiantes de Santa Rosa Junior/Senior High School, durante el resto de este año escolar.
Sin costo para el distrito. Aldea facturará a los pagadores externos de forma independiente, preservando así los limitados recursos del distrito. Se espera que este programa piloto se desarrolle a gran escala.
¿Cómo se evaluará este contrato antes de su ampliación? ¿Qué métricas se utilizarán?
H. ACTUALIZACIONES DE POLÍTICAS DE LA JUNTA / PRIMERA LECTURA
H.1. Primera lectura de la Política 0430 de la Junta: Plan Local Integral para la Educación Especial
Esta es una política de la junta para autorizar la nueva configuración del Área del Plan Local de Educación Especial (“SELPA”) para SRCS.
Línea roja de BP 0430 comienza “La Junta de Gobierno reconoce su obligación de proporcionar una educación pública gratuita y apropiada a todas las personas con discapacidades, de 3 a 21 años de edad, que residen en el distrito”.
Los miembros del Comité Asesor Comunitario han expresado su preocupación por la posibilidad de que SRCS se convierta en su propio SELPA. Existe preocupación sobre la capacidad del liderazgo para asumir esta monumental tarea. Existe preocupación por la información proporcionada al comité, la incapacidad para cumplir con los plazos y la falta de seguimiento para abordar las inquietudes. Además, existe una preocupación primordial de que SRCS esté tomando decisiones que no brindan una educación adecuada a los estudiantes con discapacidades.
Una presentación financiera del personal del distrito que mostraba el aumento de ingresos al cambiar a nuestra propia SELPA no presentó información que convenciera a los miembros del CAC de que obtendríamos fondos adicionales una vez deducidos los costos administrativos. Si esto no tiene un propósito financiero, ¿por qué asumir esta enorme responsabilidad, especialmente cuando el liderazgo de la educación especial está en constante cambio?
Si bien la creación de nuestra propia SELPA podría brindar beneficios financieros al distrito a largo plazo, el cronograma actual plantea importantes inquietudes. Debido a la velocidad con la que el distrito avanza, SRCS declaró que necesitaría seguir contratando a SELPA y SCOE para diversos servicios críticos, incluyendo, entre otros, ADR, el Centro de Tecnología Adaptativa, programas para personas con necesidades médicas frágiles y servicios itinerantes para personas sordas y con dificultades auditivas y visuales. Actualmente, el distrito no cuenta con el personal, las instalaciones ni la infraestructura programática para brindar muchos de estos servicios de forma independiente dentro del cronograma propuesto.
Durante la reunión del CAC, se afirmó que los estudiantes con problemas de salud que el distrito esperaba traer de regreso de la SCOE no podrán recibir atención médica segura en el distrito el próximo año debido a importantes preocupaciones de seguridad. Con la planificación a largo plazo y el desarrollo del programa, esto podría ser posible, pero no es viable a corto plazo. El costo de contratar estos servicios es considerable y podría reducir significativamente los ahorros proyectados para el año escolar 2026-2027, lo que probablemente provocaría un aumento en los gastos de educación especial en lugar de una disminución.
El distrito ha indicado que actualmente está a la espera de las estimaciones de costos de los servicios que deberán subcontratarse. Dada la magnitud de esta transición, sería muy beneficioso para el distrito desarrollar y seguir un plan plurianual de formación de SELPA. Antes de proceder, el distrito debe asegurarse de estar en la mejor posición posible y de contar con el apoyo tanto del público como del personal. Fortalecer los sistemas distritales sería un primer paso crucial y recomendable.
Los miembros de SRTA están seguros de que, si nos convertimos en nuestra propia SELPA, la carga de trabajo requerirá administradores distritales adicionales, algo que niegan los responsables. Los puestos actuales ya están sobrecargados de trabajo. No hay forma de que puedan asumir adecuadamente este trabajo adicional.
I. Temas de discusión/acción
I.1. Calendario Financiero
I.1. a. Comentarios públicos sobre el calendario financiero
Los comentarios tendrán una duración máxima de 60 segundos. Solo se abordarán los puntos del orden del día I1.
I.1. b. (Discusión/Acción) Reconsiderar el cierre de la escuela primaria Steele Lane
Ahorros potenciales, según lo reflejado en el informe del Comité Asesor para el Cierre de Escuelas (solo sin restricciones): $1,162,341. Si se revoca la decisión, se requerirá un análisis fiscal minucioso para revisar los supuestos incluidos en las proyecciones presupuestarias.
Los miembros de SRTA están convencidos de que cerrar una escuela perjudica a la comunidad y tiene un impacto negativo significativo en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes en los años posteriores. Especialmente cuando los estudiantes no están duplicados. Estos son precisamente los estudiantes a quienes debemos proteger con el mayor esfuerzo.
Esta junta ha solicitado que SRCS tome decisiones basadas en datos y que las decisiones se tomen mediante un proceso de evaluación para garantizar que las métricas se cumplan de una manera que justifique los esfuerzos continuos. Esta decisión de cerrar y consolidar sitios es un excelente ejemplo de la necesidad de este tipo de cambio en nuestro proceso sistémico. Deténgase y evalúe los cambios implementados. ¿Cómo han impactado el rendimiento estudiantil? ¿Ha sido la matrícula la esperada? ¿Qué ahorros se han logrado realmente? ¿Cómo se compara esto con las expectativas? Para generar confianza en la comunidad en esta junta, es necesario cambiar las prácticas para que sean más transparentes y responsables. Empiece aquí. Ahora.
El ahorro declarado de $1.1 millones sin restricciones parece una exageración, especialmente porque los $8.6 millones prometidos en ahorros por cierres anteriores aún no se han verificado. Los ahorros citados en la página 52 del anexo incluyen la eliminación de un director ($312,962), un técnico de biblioteca ($24,072) y la planta ($312,962), lo que suma un ahorro total de $714,016, ya que otros elementos ya se han eliminado o se trasladan a los estudiantes a otras sedes. También se compensaría el ahorro por la incorporación del servicio de autobús escolar a $100,000 por ruta (actualmente hay tres rutas que prestan servicio a los estudiantes de Steele Lane).
La ciudad de Santa Rosa Abordó las condiciones de la carretera en el otoño de 2024 Por lo tanto, actualmente son mejores que muchas otras escuelas primarias ubicadas en calles concurridas o cerca de ellas. Ahora hay una zona de carga protegida para el estacionamiento de autobuses y la bajada de padres. El flujo de tráfico durante la bajada y la bajada se ha reducido considerablemente, lo que aumenta la seguridad de los estudiantes.
El Plan maestro de instalaciones (2023) para Steele Lane Incluye una mejora significativa del estacionamiento y una rampa para dejar a los estudiantes. Esto representaría un uso mucho mejor de los $7 millones aprobados recientemente para instalar aulas portátiles temporales en otras escuelas para albergar a los estudiantes de Steele Lane durante un par de años.
El campus alberga una de las matrículas de primaria más numerosas, con más de 420 estudiantes, y cuenta con un amplio margen de crecimiento, ya que la reubicación de LELA al campus de ABES amplía la disponibilidad de aulas. Además, las 8.95 acres del campus ofrecen de 3 a 4 acres adicionales para nuevas construcciones, algo poco común en otros campus de primaria. No existe riesgo de falla sísmica en este campus, lo que permite nuevas construcciones en todo el terreno. La conservación de Steele Lane brinda al distrito una mayor flexibilidad para futuras opciones de instalaciones.
I.1. c. (Acción) Aprobación del Segundo Informe Fiscal Interino 2025-26 con Certificación Positiva
“Positivo” significa que el distrito puede cumplir con sus obligaciones financieras para el año fiscal en curso y los dos años fiscales subsiguientes. Se presentará un tercer informe provisional a la Junta en mayo, que incluirá actualizaciones presupuestarias hasta el 30 de abril.
Se cargarán archivos adjuntos adicionales con los detalles restantes antes de la reunión.
SRCS indicó que los ahorros reales de costos derivados de los cierres y las consolidaciones se incluirían en el primer informe provisional. Al no ser así, indicó que se incluirían en el segundo informe provisional. Los gastos del año en curso se registran en los informes provisionales, con proyecciones de los totales anuales. La falta de transparencia en torno a estos ahorros de costos deteriora aún más la confianza.
Los 5000 (Servicios y Otros Gastos Operativos) también se incluirán en este informe. Siguen representando aproximadamente el 26% del presupuesto.
Los miembros de SRTA están preocupados. Parece que este año se han denegado gastos debido a problemas presupuestarios, pero estos ahorros no se reflejan en este informe. De hecho, los cambios son mínimos con respecto al primer informe provisional. Se proyecta que los gastos del fondo general superen los ingresos en 11 millones de dólares.
El plan de estabilización incluía la recuperación de $19.9 millones del Fondo General mediante la reasignación de gastos de años anteriores imputados a este Fondo a las fuentes de financiación restringidas correspondientes. Este informe no parece haber completado este proceso. Se prevé una transferencia de $6.5 millones y una reformulación de $1.9 millones. Esto eleva el presupuesto anual a un déficit total de $3 millones, frente al saldo inicial de $14 millones, dejando un saldo final de $11 millones, suficiente para cubrir el requisito de reserva de $8 millones.
I.1. d.(Acción) Resolución 2025/26-63 Autoriza la expansión del Comité Asesor del 7-11 para Bienes Excedentes
La expansión incluirá los siguientes sitios escolares: Steele Lane ES, Hilliard Comstock MS y Herbert Slater MS.
Fase 1: Formación del Comité Octubre de 2025 – Diciembre de 2026
1. Resolución de la Junta: La Junta adopta una resolución para formar un Comité 7-11 y define el propósito, el alcance y la composición de los miembros.
2. Nombramiento de miembros: El personal recluta a los solicitantes; la Junta nombra a los miembros (7 a 11 en total, en representación de grupos comunitarios). Se asigna un enlace del personal y un asesor legal.
Fase 2: Orientación e investigación Enero 2026 – Febrero 2026
3. Orientación del comité: descripción general del Código de Educación, antecedentes de la propiedad, datos demográficos y datos de las instalaciones; el comité elige un presidente y establece un cronograma de reuniones.
4. Recopilación y revisión de datos: el personal proporciona proyecciones de inscripción, valoraciones de propiedades, costos de mantenimiento, plan maestro de instalaciones y datos sobre las necesidades de la comunidad.
Fase 3: Participación y deliberación comunitaria (marzo – abril de 2026)
5. Revisión de datos: el comité analiza todos los materiales de fondo y puede realizar visitas al sitio.
6. Audiencia(s) pública(s) – Celebrar al menos una audiencia pública para recopilar opiniones de la comunidad según el Código de Educación §17389.
7. Deliberación – El comité revisa los comentarios y finaliza sus recomendaciones preliminares.
Fase 4: Informe y recomendación mayo de 2026 – junio de 2026
8. Borrador del informe: el personal ayuda a preparar un informe escrito que describe los hallazgos y recomendaciones (conservar, arrendar o declarar excedente).
9. Aprobación del Informe Final – El Comité vota para adoptar y enviar su informe a la Junta.
10. Presentación y acción de la Junta: el comité presenta el informe; la Junta lo considera y puede adoptar recomendaciones mediante resolución.
Los miembros de SRTA saben que las mejores decisiones se toman con la mejor información. Apoyamos la provisión de este comité con toda la información solicitada.
¿Dónde se están llevando a cabo las conversaciones sobre la visión programática a largo plazo del distrito y cómo las propiedades encajan en ella, si no es en este comité? Si no es en este comité, entonces este necesita conocer la visión resultante de este trabajo. ¿Qué pasó con la idea de reubicar RHS para permitir la expansión del programa? ¿Y dónde establecerá SRCS un programa alternativo de secundaria?
I.2. Calendario de Recursos Humanos
I.2.a. Comentarios públicos sobre el calendario de servicios educativos
Los comentarios tendrán una duración máxima de 60 segundos. En este momento, solo se abordarán los temas de la agenda del G2.
I.2.b. (Acción) Revisión de la Resolución n.° 2025/26-49: Criterios para determinar el personal certificado que estará exento de la orden de despido en virtud de sus credenciales, asignación o certificación (“Criterios de omisión”)
La eliminación de los Tipos Particulares de Servicio (PKS) en la última reunión incluyó varios puestos que parecen difíciles de eliminar, ya que dichas credenciales figuraban en los criterios de exclusión. Esta revisión elimina tres credenciales de dichos criterios.
Con la eliminación de una credencial específica en ciencias o matemáticas que ya no califica a alguien para ser omitido, ahora hay una priorización sobre las fechas de antigüedad para esos puestos en lugar de las credenciales.
Esto significa que una persona con una credencial suplementaria de matemáticas puede ser retenida en lugar de una persona con una credencial completa de matemáticas de una sola materia. La credencial suplementaria solo permite la enseñanza de un curso de secundaria o primer año. Nuestras escuelas preparatorias no pueden operar sin profesores con credenciales completas para impartir los cursos de nivel superior.
I. 3. Calendario de las escuelas autónomas
I.3.a. Comentarios públicos sobre el calendario de servicios educativos
Los comentarios tendrán una duración máxima de 60 segundos. En este momento, solo se abordarán los temas de la agenda del G2.
I.2.b. (Discusión) Rol del Comité de Escuelas Charter Dependientes
Se discutirán las responsabilidades de la Junta como autorizador y junta directiva de las escuelas autónomas dependientes, incluidos posibles puntos de discusión:
La distinción entre la supervisión de las políticas del distrito y la autonomía de los estatutos otorgada en una petición de estatutos aprobada
Supervisión del rendimiento académico, la gestión fiscal, la transparencia y el cumplimiento de los compromisos de la carta y la ley estatal.
Canales de comunicación claros entre el liderazgo de la escuela charter, la administración del distrito y la Junta
Mejores prácticas para mantener la separación entre las decisiones de gobernanza del distrito y la autonomía del programa de estatutos
El papel de las peticiones de estatutos, los informes anuales y los procesos de renovación para orientar la supervisión
Hace ya tiempo que SRCS debería haber establecido políticas y procesos transparentes para nuestras escuelas autónomas dependientes, de modo que puedan recibir un trato equitativo.
Ha habido confusión sobre quién decide qué. ¿Qué le corresponde a la junta, a la oficina del distrito o al centro?
También existe confusión sobre las obligaciones financieras. ¿Quién establece el presupuesto de las escuelas chárter? ¿Cuánto cobra SRCS a las chárter y cómo se calculan esas cifras?
¿Quién controla la matrícula y las listas de espera? ¿Quién decide quién puede transferirse a una escuela? ¿Quién decide qué clases se ofrecen y qué puestos se cubren?
K. SOLICITUDES DE INFORMACIÓN DE MIEMBROS DE LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA
Solicitudes previas en espera de respuestas agendadas por la junta
J DLT -Plan de lista de espera- Mayo es demasiado tarde.
NC – Plan de comunicación.
MK – Quiere copias del Panorama y la encuesta sobre la verdad juvenil.
SJ – Matriculación proyectada para el próximo año.
DP – ¿Podemos tener un profesor sin derecho a voto en la junta?
SJ – ¿Plan de marketing según lo comprometido el año pasado?
DLT – Datos sobre el impacto de las exenciones en las tasas de graduación. Información sobre cómo identificamos la preparación para la universidad y la carrera profesional.
MK – Datos de iReady
L. ELEMENTOS DE INFORMACIÓN
L.1. Temas futuros de discusión de la Junta
Puntos futuros de la agenda:
Audiencias públicas: Renovaciones de los estatutos de CCLA y SRACS
Aprobación del Plan Maestro de Instalaciones (PMI) actualizado
Actualización sobre el trabajo de rediseño secundario
Programas especializados de presentación/discusión
Aprobación del Plan Local SELPA
Aprobación de los Calendarios Instruccionales y Clasificados
SRTA analiza la programación futura de los siguientes elementos:
Medina- Datos de instrucción AP con número de años de experiencia de los docentes
-Aclaración sobre la adopción de políticas de la junta que requieren una mayoría de los miembros de la junta en lugar de una mayoría de los presentes/votantes.
– considerar clubes o equipos de deportes electrónicos
Caston- Informe financiero de financiación del sitio con diversos montos y fuentes
-estrategia del programa de atletismo en todo el distrito
-Actualizar la política 3510 sobre la reducción de residuos como tema de debate
– cómo se apoyan diferentes programas deportivos con concentraciones, etc.
Prak – Informe del nivel de mantenimiento de campos de césped
– Actualización sobre deportes a nivel MS
Kirby: ¿Agregar un entrenador asistente de lucha libre para mujeres?
DeLaTorre-Tarifa de instalaciones, ¿posibles reducciones?
Jenkins – Actualización sobre el transporte para los deportes de la escuela secundaria
Aprobación del puesto de Coordinador de Salud Mental (retrasado desde febrero de 2026)
Discusión sobre los apoyos a programas especializados (retrasado desde febrero de 2026)
Audiencia pública sobre la renovación de la Carta de la CCLA (aplazada desde enero de 2026)
¿Se extenderá esta charter al 12.º grado para que pueda permanecer en el campus de Cook? ¿Qué implicará este cambio en la práctica?
Audiencia pública sobre la renovación de la Carta del SRACS (retrasada desde enero de 2026)
¿Se incluirá una solicitud de revisión del material, ya que se estaba considerando extenderlo a cuarto grado? ¿Se compartirá toda la comunicación con RVUSD en este punto?
Presentación de la política de telefonía móvil (retrasada desde septiembre de 2025 y nuevamente desde enero de 2026)
El personal tuvo la oportunidad de completar una encuesta sobre teléfonos celulares. Todas las preguntas eran obligatorias, y las opciones de respuesta no siempre permitían una respuesta precisa. Debido a estas fallas, no se incluyeron comentarios valiosos en los resultados.
Actualización del Sistema de Apoyo Multinivel (MTSS) (diciembre de 2025)
Datos de la Encuesta Panorama y la Verdad Juvenil (agosto de 2025)
Datos de prácticas restaurativas (marzo de 2025)
Aspectos destacados del programa VAPA (febrero de 2025)
Plan y cronograma para la implementación de las recomendaciones del Dr. Gillespie sobre Servicios Especiales (enero de 2025), Nuevo estudio de FCMAT sobre el programa de educación especial de SRCS
Primer borrador del Plan de Seguridad del Distrito (retrasado desde septiembre de 2024)
Compartiendo el Plan Maestro de la Biblioteca con expectativas de implementación
Cierre oficial de Learning House y otros sitios
Plan para el programa de apoyo a la vivienda del personal con los ingresos de Fir Ridge
Hasta que el distrito tome una decisión, los fondos provenientes de la venta de la propiedad de Fir Ridge se encuentran estancados y pierden valor a medida que el costo de la vivienda sigue aumentando. La puesta en marcha de un programa podría ayudar a SRCS a atraer y retener al personal de CSEA. El impacto potencial de los fondos disminuye con el tiempo.
Política de Voz Estudiantil
L.3. Actualización del contrato entre escuelas no públicas y organismos no públicos
Se adjunta información sobre los contratos con agencias y escuelas privadas que atienden a nuestros estudiantes con IEP. Información actualizada sobre los cambios en los contratos de las escuelas privadas. No hay cambios que informar en este momento en las agencias y escuelas privadas.
Lista de escuelas no públicas 155 estudiantes, 16 vendedores, por un total de $9,002,476, con un promedio de $58,080 por estudiante.
Lista de agencias no públicas 206 empleados, 10 proveedores, por un total de $5,212,374, con un promedio de $25,302 por empleado. SRCS ofrece un salario inicial de $21 por hora para los auxiliares. Estas agencias cobran a SRCS un mínimo de $45 por hora.
L.4. Información sobre la matrícula actual y proyectada/listas de espera
Actualizar Contiene la matrícula del año en curso, la capacidad y las inscripciones para el próximo año. Incluye datos sobre transferencias y su destino.
Los miembros de SRTA agradecen esta información. Esperamos que haya más.
L.5. Calendario de reuniones del Subcomité de Finanzas de la Junta
Lunes 6 de abril de 2026
Lunes 4 de mayo de 2026
Lunes 1 de junio de 2026
L.6. Fechas de futuras reuniones extraordinarias de la Junta y sesiones de estudio
Miércoles 1 de abril de 2026 Reunión especial de la Junta, búsqueda de superintendente
Sábado 11 de abril de 2026 Reunión especial de la Junta, búsqueda de superintendente
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 Expulsion (Case No: 2025/26-11)
B.2. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
B.3. 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.4. 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. 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.
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.
EdJoin shows a total of sixty-one current postings for one-hundred thirty-two jobs in SRCS. There are eleven certificated opening postings (one more than last month) for nine teaching positions and two other certificated positions. There are forty-six current classified postings for one-hundred seventeen job openings (one more than the last meeting.) There are three certificated and one classified management positions posted.
Summer School Admin jobs have been posted.
SRTA heartily welcomes Prosper Tengepare (MHS). We welcome back Johnathan Wright (RHS.)
We bid farewell to Alexandra Evans (HLES), Olivier Begue (FACS), Antoine Machillot (FACS), Emilie Carret Machillot (FACS), and Manon Czuckermand(FACS) who resigned taking eleven years of experience with them.
Congratulations to Corinne Naro (FACS) and Gail Gagliano (H&H) who have announced their upcoming retirements, after a combined thirty-six years in our district.
Changes to classified staff includes two new hires, one rehire and two resignations. They leave taking with them six years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
There is one admin resignation who sadly takes over a decade in experience with them. SRCS must restructure how they treat our staff and site admin so that they can do a better job retaining them. Hiring and training new people is markedly more difficult. It can be impossible to keep afloat with constant turnover, let alone make significant strides toward new goals.
Are the funds not spent from positions we are unable to fill adjusted for in the second interim report? If the two unfilled Facilitator positions could be closed, those funds could open up $200,000 from restricted funds that could be redirected, now. If SRCS were to hire folks, they’d hardly have time to orient before the end of the year, and it is presumed that these positions are not being renewed. End the posts.
F.5. 5. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Lease-Leaseback Agreement with Wright Contracting LLC for the Elsie Allen High School Roofing and HVAC Project
This establishes the Guaranteed Maximum Project Price and authorizes the project to proceed in accordance with the approved contract documents.
F.7. 7. Approval of PBK Architects, Inc. Master Architectural Agreement
PBK Architects was one of the firms that was included in the approval of the original pool of firms in 2023. While no project assignments have been executed to date with PBK, SRCS is executing a Master Agreement as it anticipates bringing project assignments forth in the future for PBK.
What are the obligations and responsibilities for this committee? Do they hold any decision making power, or are their recommendations non-binding?
SRTA members are concerned that District Administrators are already overwhelmed with their current job responsibilities and adding SELPA requirements to their duties will make their jobs completely unmanageable.
G. BOARD POLICY UPDATES / FIRST READ
Clarification is sought about the desired process for board policy updates. When is the time for discussion, questions and suggestions? Is this an informational item only, or is the first read the appropriate time for input?
G.2. Board Policy 6146.1: High School Graduation Requirements-CTE Industry Concentration Certificate Update
This revision will also provide clarity and guidance to staff, students, parents/guardians, and the community, and support greater access to CTE Pathways and CTE Completion.
The expectation was made clear at the Saturday Study Session that agenda items should contain all pertinent information when the agenda posts. It is expected that this will be the last agenda with statements such as “Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board meeting” which appear on most items that follow.
H.1. Education Services Calendar
H.1. a. Public Comment on Education Services Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on H1 agenda are addressed at this time
H.1. b. (Discussion) Board Recommendation for A-G Requirements Supporting Docs/Links attached to this item
This item is to direct the Superintendent (or designee) to collaborate with teachers, instructional leaders, department chairs, counselors, and instructional staff to review current A–G graduation requirements and related student support structures, and to return to the Board with recommended adjustments that promote equity, access, and successful graduation for all students.
SRTA members support providing students with academic options which meet them where they are, and support them in getting where they want to go. Even in these turbulent times, there are likely educators willing to serve on this committee, if they are assured their efforts will not be in vain.
H.2. Finance Calendar
H.2.a. Public Comment on Finance Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on the H2 agenda are addressed at this time.
H.2.b. (Discussion/Action) District Consolidation: Recommend Support of a Three District Model
It is unclear which three district Model this resolution supports. The earlier study had two scenarios which may be what is being suggested.
Scenario 2: Split SRCHSD Into Two School District Areas.
• A Santa Rosa City Unified with SRCESD, Bellevue, Roseland, Bennett Valley, Wright, and 63% of the high school district.
• A Rincon Valley High School District and Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District under one common administration.
o An alternative would be to create a Rincon Valley Unified School District that includes Rincon Valley and approximately 37% of SRCHSD’s students. The existing elementary districts of Mark West, Kenwood, and Piner-Olivet would remain independent to limit the loss of basic aid community funding. A common administration for the four districts, like the current Santa Rosa City elementary and high school arrangement, is suggested to save the most costs instead of a full unification.
Scenario 3: Consolidation of Elementary School Districts Under Common Administration with SRCHSD.
• Santa Rosa City Union Elementary School District would merge Bellevue, Roseland, Bennett Valley, and Wright with Santa Rosa City Elementary Schools under a consolidated administration with SRCHSD.
• A Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District would merge Rincon Valley, Piner-Olivet, Kenwood, and Mark West and send secondary pupils to SRCHSD under one common administration.
Redistricting requires the approval of other districts, and creates new districts with new names, boards and administration. The process is not rapid.
There is a growing ground swell supporting a restructuring of the elementary districts in Santa Rosa. The model that the board was attracted to when this came up was not immediately financially sound. The other options were more financially attractive. The idea of giving the area a fresh start, with more funding that new districts would provide is appealing on many fronts.
H.2.c. (Action) Fiscal Stabilization Plan and Recommendations to the Board
In discussing the Fiscal Stabilization Plan, the Board should evaluate both the immediate and long-term financial impacts of the recommended actions, including expenditure reductions, revenue enhancements, organizational restructuring, and efficiency measures.
There are grave concerns about the negative impact these changes will have on students, site cultures and staff. Without any understanding of when finances would be expected to improve, or when services could be restored, or the manner in which those decisions would be made, it is very difficult to feel motivated to endure this chaos. Especially when it feels like the decisions were far from the classroom, but the impact will be most felt there.
SRCS will not be seen as a destination district for students or staff. While prohibiting transfers within, or out of the district are expected to stabilize enrollment, in truth this can further exacerbate the problem, and allow those with the knowledge and means to explore ways around the denials, to enroll their students where they want them to go.
Asking district staff, “Will this work?” does not equal substantial evaluation of the plans prior to implementation. Educators have shared their numerous, significant concerns, and feel like they are being ignored. There are no implementation plans of any kind for these changes. This does not build confidence.
If implemented, how will these changes be evaluated? How will finances be tracked to verify if cost savings match projections? How are we monitoring enrollment? How does SRCS validate the expectation that denying transfers will result in enrollment in neighborhood schools?
Transparent SRCS shows income outpacing expenses until the last three years. The one time solutions appear to be fixing three years of fund misallocation, redirecting expenses from the general fund to instead utilize restricted funds. This awareness erodes trust in those leading the district fiscal decisions for the past three years.
Where else could funds be found? There are no cuts proposed for district staffing from the Business Services department. Services and Other Operating Costs are 25% of the budget. There are NO proposed cuts from this realm. From last year’s budget to this year’s budget, service contracts have been increased by $8.5 million dollars. SRCS must fix what is broken.
H.3. Human Resources Calendar
The ongoing practice of not having required documents prepared in time for the release of the Board Agenda is deeply troubling. The board has asked that this practice be discontinued, as the absence of attachments prevents both the board and the public from reviewing the information and preparing responses. Board members must have the necessary context to make informed decisions.
H.3.a. Public Comment on Human Resources Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on the H3 agenda are addressed at this time
H.3.b. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-52 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Certificated Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.c. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-53 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Classified Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.d. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-54 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Supervisory and Unrepresented Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.e. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-55 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Teamsters Local 665 Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.g. (Action) Approval of Proposed Job Description for Coordinator of Mental Health
Reduce 1.0 FTE Director to 1.0 FTE Coordinator is a general fund unrestricted savings of approximately $23,795 and restricted savings of approximately $25,778.
Fiscal Savings: $49,573
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.h. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-57 Reduction in Classified Work Force due to School Closures for the 2026-27 School Year
The financial impact of eliminating Steele Lane Elementary School listed classified positions and Hilliard Comstock Middle School’s listed classified positions is a general fund unrestricted savings of approximately $1,858,708 and restricted savings of approximately $1,091,702.
This resolution cuts is 35 positions representing 25.1 FTE
District leadership states positions being cut are just part of position control, eliminating positions tied to schools/classes that are being closed. Many positions will be recreated for the new classrooms at other campuses and for the additional new positions of assistants for push-in support. Because so many jobs will transfer sites with students, it is disingenuous to state that there is a savings from the elimination of these positions. Including the elimination of a Director at the district office also seems inappropriate. The savings stated by the district average to more than $117,000 per position.
The attached SLES HVMS Classified Savings.pdf spreadsheet calculates listed positions as if the employees were all at step 5, utilizing posted FTE percentages of salaries, and deleting the district level director salary. These reasonable manipulations brings the total savings to $1,388,574.$338,000 of that represents the minimum cost for positions moving with the students (expected to be re-created), bringing the actual savings to $1,050,000. Upholding staffing ratios may actually cause the real savings to further decrease.
If there is a desire to actually build trust, SRCS will share district staffing ratios. This would include the ideal ratios that are being sought, as well as the actual ratios being staffed. Stakeholders need to understand the reasons for deviations from ratio expectations for certain positions at certain sites.
The SRCS board needs to be stewards. When and how does the board evaluate the decision to close sites? When are the expected savings compared with actual savings? When is the lost enrollment evaluated? Providing the public with documentation of actual financial savings from recent site closures would build understanding and support for efforts to continue to close sites. Without this information, there is not a willingness for sites to subject themselves to the chaos of tearing their school communities apart.
H.3.i. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-58 Reduction or Discontinuance of Certain Particular Kinds of Services (PKS) Administrative Positions for the 2026-27 School Year
The financial impact of eliminating Steele Lane Elementary School Principal Position, Hilliard Comstock Middle School Principal Position, and Hilliard Comstock Middle School Vice Principal Position is a general fund unrestricted savings of approximately $540,429.
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
K. INFORMATION ITEMS
K.1. Future Board Discussion Items
Future Agenda Items:
LCAP Mid-Year Review (from Jan 2026)
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?
2025/26 Second Interim Report
Should include update on savings put in place this year
Update on fiscal stabilization plan for items from the 5000’s
Update on savings from site closing/consolidation
Study Session: Priority 2-Safety and Security
Approval of BP 1445: Response to Immigration Enforcement
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
CCLA Charter Renewal Public Hearing (delayed from Jan 2026)
Is this charter extending to 12th grade, to allow it to stay on the Cook Campus? What will that change entail in practice?
SRACS Charter Renewal Public Hearing (delayed from Jan 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?
Cell Phone Policy Presentation (delayed from Sept 2025, and again from Jan 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.
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.3. Dates of Future Special Board Meetings and Study Sessions
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.
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.
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..
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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%.)
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.
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
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
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.
GeneralItems: Facilities Master Plan meetings concluding, input will be reviewed in February
PlanningStageandUpcomingProjects:
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.
CurrentConstructionProjects:
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.
ProjectsClosingOut:
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.
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. One Student Readmissions (Case No: 202425-19)
B.2. Two Student Expulsion (Case Nos: 2025/26-08, 2025/26-09)
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.6. 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 (Presidents of Labor Organizations, Superintendent and Board Members)
A letter of resignation is attached to the end of the agenda from RHS Student Board Member Olivera.
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. Please be prepared to observe the three minute time limit or the imposition of a possible last minute reduction in the time limit. Comments have been limited to as little as 60 seconds, with a limit on the total time spent on public comments. 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.
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.
EdJoin shows a total of 62 current postings for 170 jobs in SRCS. There are eleven certificated opening postings (one less than last month) for seven teaching positions and four other certificated positions. There are forty-nine current classified postings for one-hundred fourteen job openings (forty-four less than the last meeting.) There is one certificated and one classified management position posted.
SRTA heartily welcomes Francisco Sanchez Ruiz (EAHS.)
We bid farewell to Meghan McDonnell (SLES), Gabrielle Licata (EAHS) and Aimee Ouellette (EAHS) who have all resigned taking over twelve years of experience with them.
Changes to classified staff includes ten new hires, two rehires and two resignations. They leave taking with them over 4 years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
There are three supervisorial resignations announced, two Program Managers and a School Based Therapist, taking six years of service with them.
F.5. Approval of Contracts over $15,000
#
Provider
Cost
Description
Charter
1
Code Rev Kids, Inc.
$41,000
Coding and Robotics for FACS students, doubling the contract from August.
SRTA members appreciate that there will be reroofing at EAHS. Will this project reroof the entire site?
Items on the list of contracts include a total project amount. That is not included in this item.
F.8. Approval of Proposed Increase of Minimum Wage
Effective January 1, 2026, the local minimum wage will be increased to $18.21 from $17.87. The board Finance Subcommittee recommends adjusting SRCS wages to align with the local minimum wage.
SRTA members appreciate the board honoring the labor of these employees.
H.9. Approval of Developer Fees Annual Report
In the 2024-25 fiscal year, in the Fund 25 Developer Fees, the District collected fees and interest of $1,428,511.61 and incurred $1,513,511.03 of expenses and had an ending fund balance of $8,758,577.16.
H. 10. Approval of Amended 2025-2026 Classified Employee Calendar
This will align with the previously approved SRTA 25–26 MOU #1, which adjusted the 2025–2026 Instructional Calendar.
The amended Classified Employee Calendar reflects the following changes consistent with the revised Instructional Calendar:
January 12, 2026 – Originally scheduled as a Professional Development Day, this date will be converted to an Emergency Closure Day (non-workday for teachers and school-year employees; non-student day if not needed).
April 24, 2026 – Originally scheduled as an Emergency Closure Day, this date will be converted to a Professional Development Day (non-student day).
H.11. Approval of Updated Salary Schedules due to reduction of work days: Schedule Management, Supervisory & Unrepresented Employees, Confidential Employees and Working Professional
The updated salary schedules reflect the reduction of two workdays and ensure that compensation accurately aligns with the revised work calendars for the 2025–2026 school year.
H.12. Approval of Separate 2024–2025 Teamsters Local 665 Salary Schedule
This item separates Teamsters-represented positions into their own distinct salary schedule for the 2024–2025 school year to accurately reflect their bargaining unit status. No changes are being made to current salary rates, steps, or ranges as part of this action.
State law requires all California LEAs to adopt a policy on referral protocols for addressing pupil behavioral health concerns by January 31, 2026. The updated CSBA sample policy incorporates these requirements and formalizes the behavioral health support systems already in place through our wellness centers, school-based therapists, and MTSS framework. Following adoption, staff will develop Administrative Regulations detailing specific procedures and referral pathways in consultation with stakeholders.
Policy 5141.5 The Superintendent or designee shall provide school staff and students with information and training to recognize the early signs and symptoms…
SRTA members are curious about the process that will be used for stakeholder consultation on Administrative Regulations.
H. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS
H.1. (Action) Approval of Resolutionsfor Semester Two
Resolution Recognizing Week of School Counselor Feb 2–6
Resolution in Support of April as National Sexual Assault Awareness Month
Resolution Reaffirming Support for LGBTQIA+ Community
Santa Rosa City Schools District shall celebrate LGBTQ+ diversity by proclaiming and recognizing June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month, October as LGBTQ+ History Month, October 11th as National Coming Out Day, November 20th as Transgender Day of Remembrance, March 31st as Transgender Day of Visibility, April 12th as Day of Silence, and other relevant occasions to honor the contributions of the LGBTQ+ community, fostering a sense of belonging and visibility for LGBTQ+ students and staff; and
Resolution Recognizing May as the National Speech-Language-Hearing Month
H.2. (Discussion) Strategic Planning: Priority 2: Safety and Security
40 Minutes Estimated Time
Purpose, and Session Norms (5 minutes)
Framing Priority 2: Safety and Security (10 minutes)
Key Outcomes and Goal Considerations (15 minutes)
Synthesis and Next Steps (8 minutes)
Closing Reflections (2 minutes)
SRTA members are concerned that the elimination of mental health supports will have a negative impact on the level of safety on our campuses. Counselors, School Based Therapists and Restorative Specialists all offer students assistance with decision making, communication, coping mechanisms and self regulation.
Will a student be recruited to replace Ms. Olivera, or will that position remain open for the semester?
K.2. Future Board Discussion Items
Will the board commence a transparent practice of announcing anticipated future special board meetings at the prior regular board meeting, allowing stakeholders to plan accordingly?
Future Agenda Items:
2026/27 Governor’s Budget Proposal
Fiscal Stabilization Plan
2024/25 Financial Audit
Second Read and Approval of BP 5141.5
School Accountability Report Card
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, announcing, 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 – transporting as needed for middle school sports?
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
Resolution Recognizing April 12th as Day of Silence (Jan 2026)
Resolution Recognizing May 8th as School Communicators Day (Jan 2026)
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Update (Dec 2025)
Cell Phone Board Policy Presentation and Update (September 2025)
Staff was recently 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. Valuable input will not be included in the results from this faulty survey..
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
SRACS Accelerated Charter Material Revision Request (delayed)
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.4. 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
L.5. Williams Settlement Quarterly Report
During the quarter of October 1st and ending December 31, 2025, the district received 0 Williams Uniform Complaints.
SRTA members are aware of unhealthy conditions on campuses such as rodent infestations and mold. These should be reported as Williams Complaints to ensure they receive the attention they merit.
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 (Presidents of Labor Organizations, Superintendent and Board Members)
D.5. A. Board President Report: Appointment of Members for Santa Rosa City Schools Subcommittees
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. Please be prepared to observe the three minute time limit or the imposition of a possible last minute reduction in the time limit. Comments have been limited to as little as 60 seconds, with a limit on the total time spent on public comments. 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.
There is a large concern that the fiscal decisions being made will exacerbate enrollment issues for SRCS.
SRCS is committed to four more years of providing Community Schools at AES, HLES, JMES, LBES and SLES.
The details of how this grant is impacted by closing sites has not been shared.
Pillars of this program include
Integrated Student Supports for academic, physical, social-emotional, and mental health needs.
Family and Community Engagement including “home visits, home-school collaboration, [and] culturally responsive community partnerships.”
How will these commitments be met with the elimination of elementary counselors, SBT, and Restorative positions?
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.
EdJoin shows a total of 57 current postings for 170 jobs in SRCS. There are twelve certificated opening postings (two less than last month.) There are forty-five current classified postings for one-hundred fifty-eight job openings (thirteen less than the last meeting.) There are no certificated and no classified management positions posted.
There are two Community School Coordinator positions posted as well as three Wellness Coaches. This raises questions about unclear future intentions for these programs.
SRTA heartily welcomes Kennedy Nti (EAHS), James Sakyi (SRHS), Stephen Acheampong (RVMS), Grace Sarfo (RHS), Christiana Quansah (SRMS), Tracy Hahn (MHS), Kailani Gomez-Alcala (PTES), Maria Crane (ALES) and welcomes back Susan Binckley (CCLA).
We bid farewell to the retiring Christina Gravelle who leaves us after 21 years of service to students.
Changes to classified staff includes eight new hires, one termination, five resignations and one retirement. They leave taking with them over 43 years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
There are three resignations from Business Services that raise concerns for SRTA members. There is fear that district business will be hampered with the loss of these knowledgeable staff. We wish them success including those with new positions of higher responsibility in neighboring districts.
Simona Hoyos, District Accountant
Christine Trumbly, Budget Technician
Violeta Gonzalez Alvarez, Payroll Technician III
F.3. Approval of Contracts over $15,000
#
Provider
Cost
Description
Elementary
2
NatureBridge
$25,747.70
6th grade Outdoor Ed for SRACS.
3
SpringBoard Collaborative
$249,205.00
ELOP funded K-3 early literacy for 500 students of ALES, JMES, PTES, HLES, and SLES in afterschool programs at $500 each.
District
1
Left Coast Scanning, LLC
$21,980.00
These services will allow staff to view, search, and manage personnel, student, payroll, workers’ compensation, and testing files directly through Left Coast Scanning’s platform.
4
Recology Sonoma Marin
$803,567.64
$633,000 annual contract in 2021 was for 24 sites over three years, with possibility for fourth and fifth years for an additional 2.5% each time. This contract is for fewer sites an an additional 27% in cost.
What does the evaluation of Springboard include? $500 per student is substantial.
Left Coat Scanning requires an ongoing contract as all the scanned documents are hosted on their platform. This was not transparently part of the original agreement for scanning.
The Recology contract is concerning as the numbers do not seem to align. What additional information explains how diminishing the number of sites being served, and an agreement of an annual increase of 2.5% results in a contract for an additional 26%?
H.4. Approval of Contracts – Bond
The new last column lists the total cost of the project.
SRTA members are glad that students will no longer be impacted by the flooding at LBES. What is the estimated total cost for repairing the storm drain at LBES?
Courses will replace existing sections. No new textbooks or materials required.
H.6. Approval of the Naming of the Piner High School Basketball Court in honor of Coach Mike Erickson
Mike Erickson, long-time Piner High School educator and coach, retired from coaching basketball in 2024 after 33 years serving as the second Head Coach in the school’s history. “Coach”, then retired as an educator at the end of the 2024-25 school year.
SRTA members appreciate the dedication of Mike Erickson, and support honoring him.
H.7. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached with Santa Rosa City Schools (SRCS) and Santa Rosa Teachers Association (SRTA) regarding SRTA 25-26 #1 MOU Adjustments to 2025-2026 Instructional Calendar
January 12, 2026 – Originally scheduled as a Professional Development Day, this date will be converted to an Emergency Closure Day (non-workday for teachers and school-year employees; non-student day if not needed).
April 24, 2026 – Originally scheduled as an Emergency Closure Day, this date will be converted to a Professional Development Day (non-student day).
This MOU is pending ratification by the SRTA membership.
G.1. (Action) Resolution of Criteria to Determine Certificated Personnel Who Shall be Exempt From the Order of Layoff by Virtue of Their Credentials, Assignment, or Certification (“Skipping Criteria”)
Due to inability to recruit new employees, any certificated employee who possesses the special training or experience listed below shall be exempt from the order of layoff.
1) Possession of a Single Subject Spanish credential, Spanish (Bilingual Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development Certificate (“BCLAD”) and/or French (BCLAD);
2) Possession of a Single Subject Math and/or Single Subject Science credential (including but not limited to physics, chemistry, biological science, physical science, life science and geoscience);
3) Possession of a Special Education credential;
4) All teachers who are assigned to the dual immersion program at SRFACS;
5) All teachers who are assigned to teach a course in Spanish as part of the dual immersion program at CCLA and EAHS;
6) All teachers who have successful experience teaching transitional kindergarten within the last 5 years;
7) School Psychologist and Speech Language Pathologists holding a Bilingual Certification.
SRTA members are keenly aware of the continuing increase of stress and chaos in working within SRCS. This motion puts all teachers on the bottom of the seniority list, that do not possess credentials or placements worthy of skipping, on notice that their position may be on the chopping block in February. They are wise to keep their options open to secure employment for next year.
SRTA members deserve regularly updated Seniority Lists, to assess their position. This was an unkept promise last year. SRTA expects systemic improvements that will allow for this to be shared regularly, allowing for corrections to be made before RIF notices.
G.2. Action) Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached with Santa Rosa City Schools (SRCS) and the Santa Rosa Teachers Association (SRTA) regarding SRTA 25-26 #2 MOU Speech Language Pathologist Overages
The financial savings of this MOU are not specified. $750,000 of contracted SLP services will be replaced by paying SRCS SLPs an hourly rate to work with students beyond caseload capacities.
SRTA 25-26 #2 MOU is pending ratification of the SRTA membership.
The MOU will be attached prior to the 12/17/2025 Board Meeting, and will be shared with SCOE .
SRTA members highlighted the ineffective practice of remotely providing speech services, as well as the enormous expense of the outside contracts. There is an appreciation that SRCS was willing to listen and reconsider their decision.
G.3. (Action) SELPA Recommendation Changes to the Sonoma County SELPA allocation policy will reduce special education funding for SRCS. Becoming an independent SELPA would allow SRCS to better control costs, manage resources, and continue delivering high-quality special education services. SRCS has already worked to build capacity, reducing dependence on County Office services. Additionally, SRCS expects to support neighboring districts by providing special education programs and services as space permits while charging surrounding districts.
Additional expenditures would include:
● Five students served by Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE) in the Specialized Health Program
● Forty-five students served by Itinerant Deaf/Hard of Hearing (“DHH”) SCOE staff
● Eleven students served by Itinerant Visually Impaired (“VI”) SCOE program staff
● Potential California Children’ s Services (“CCS”) – hosting a Medical Therapy Unit (currently at Lewis Campus)
SRTA members have witnessed too many rounds of changes to special services that, while intended to decrease the budget, have in fact ended up increasing costs. If this independent SELPA does not financially pan out as expected, what options will SRCS have to back out of this plan?
G.4.& 5. Public Hearing and Action on Resolution to Convey Easements to the City of Santa Rosa
SRCS has determined it is in the best interest of the District to convey certain easements over portions of District property at MHS to the City of Santa Rosa to allow access for construction, maintenance, and ongoing operation of the ROck Creek and Matanzas water and sewer main replacement.
There is no ending date for this easement agreement.
Net Payment to the District in the amount of $190,099.
G.6. (Public Hearing / Action) Pivot Charter School North Bay Renewal Petition
Pivot Charter School seeks authorization for continued operation within the geographic boundaries of SRCS from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031, for grade levels K-12. SRCS has determined that Pivot qualifies for a five-year renewal of its charter term.
SRCS will receive a 1% fee to offset costs associated with oversight.
SRTA members appreciate approving the petition for Pivot in that they provide necessary alternative settings for students that SRCS doesn’t currently offer.
L.1. Future Board Discussion Items
Can the board accept the transparent practice of announcing anticipated future special board meetings at the prior regular board meeting, allowing stakeholders to plan accordingly?
SRTA members are encouraged to prepare for the upcoming agenda items – Resolutions for semester two.
Resolution Recognizing Jan 27 as Holocaust Remembrance Day
Resolution Designating April as School Library Month
Resolution Recognizing March 31st as Transgender Day of Visibility
Resolution for Classified School Employee Week May 18–24
Resolution Celebrating CNS Professionals Week of April 27-May 1st
Resolution for May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
Resolution for Teacher Appreciation Week May 4–8
Resolution in Support of April as National Sexual Assault Awareness Month
Resolution Recognizing April 12th as Day of Silence
Resolution Recognizing May 8th as School Communicators Day
Resolution Recognizing May as the Month of Speech and Language Pathologist
Resolution Reaffirming Support for LGBTQIA+ Community / Proclaiming June as Pride Month, March 31st as Transgender Day
Resolution for Mental Health Awareness
Resolution for School Nurse Day May 6
Resolution for February as African-American History Month
Resolution Recognizing Week of School Counselor Feb 2–6
Resolution Recognizing February CTE Month
Resolution for March as Women’s History Month
Resolution for Arts Education Month
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, announcing, 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 – transporting as needed for sports?
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
7-11 Committee List (Dec 2025)
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Update (Dec 2025)
Cell Phone Board Policy Presentation and Update (September 2025)
Staff was recently 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. Valuable input will not be included in the results from this faulty survey..
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)
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
SRACS Accelerated Charter Material Revision Request (delayed)
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.
District Office & Education Center Progress on testing
Helen Lehman ES TK Classrooms Progress with DSA review. Wright Contracting will be mobilizing on site over the winter break, and sitework is anticipated to begin in early 2026.
Santa Rosa DeSoto Hall Modernization and Theater Roofing Design work completed and submitted to DSA. CORE has performed pre-construction site visits and will continue pre-construction activities until DSA approval is obtained
Piner HS Theater Lighting Modernization O’Rourke Electric will begin in January and be complete in April, before spring productions.
Elsie Allen Roofing and HVAC Construction documents completed and submitted to DSA. Onsite investigations have been ongoing to determine existing conditions.
Design work is under way to provide temporary housing portables to accommodate increased student population in Temporary Portables at Luther Burbank, Hidden Valley, and Proctor Terrace.
SRFACS @ SRMS TK Classrooms under review by DSA.
Current Construction Projects:
Piner High School 2-Story Classroom part 3 in review with DSA, underground utilities, grading, the elevator pit has been excavated, building’s concrete foundation rebar grade beams and grade slab were completed. Pour for the building foundation is scheduled to occur on 12/17/25, with steel erection following.
James Monroe ES TK Classrooms Arntz Builders is excavating the site, concrete slab on grade complete and structural steel erection expected to begin 12/15/25.
Santa Rosa HS Parking Lot Improvements and Fencing DSA-required modifications for ArtQuest restroom are almost complete. Decorative metal fencing installation at the front of campus is near completion. Progress on storage sheds.
District-Wide Electronic Access Controls are ongoing at SRHS, MHS, MCHS and RVMS. Construction activities have begun at PHS and ALES, as part of the Phase 2 projects. Project drawings for the Phase 3 sites, which include SRMS, RHS, SRCSfor the Arts, EAHS, HVES, and CCLA are near completion. Site walks to review were conducted during the Thanksgiving break.
Projects Closing Out:
Montgomery HS 2-Story Classroom Building gates have been installed, security panels underway. Punchlist items continue being resolved. Furniture delivery is nearly complete. Permanent replacements for the defective stools in the science labs have been received, and will be installed over the winter break. 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 IT & Purchasing departments transitioning to the new space.
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. Board President End of Year Report
E. Annual Organization of the Board (Choosing Officers for next year)
SRTA Members are invested in having a well informed and high functioning board.
F. Reports (Presidents of Labor Organizations, Superintendent and Board Members)
G. 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. Please be prepared to observe the three minute time limit or the imposition of a possible last minute reduction in the time limit. Comments have been limited to as little as 60 seconds, with a limit on the total time spent on public comments. 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.
There is a large concern that the fiscal decisions being made will exacerbate enrollment issues for SRCS.
Chromebooks
SRTA members are concerned about the shift to not purchase replacement chromebooks. There is a concern that there are not enough units to facilitate SBAC testing. The changes in practice, to collect individual units and distribute limited carts to elementary and middle sites are being implemented rapidly.
The impact this has on teaching and learning seems to have not been considered. The new middle school elective course is one of several courses that are heavily chromebook dependent. Teaching research can not be done without chromebooks when our sites have eliminated encyclopedias and dictionaries.
SRCS still does not have a technology plan, and there is no clear policy about who is fiscally responsible for damaged chromebooks. Families are not offered insurance to help cover this potential liability.
General fund dollars must rightly be scrutinized right now, shifting funding sources as needed to meet the financial crisis. Perhaps it is reasonable to temporarily utilize bond funds to eliminate the chaos and loss to education that will ensue with the loss of chromebooks.
All consent items are enacted by the Board in one motion, unless a Board member requests that an item be removed and discussed separately.
This month there is no personnel report on this agenda. This is highly unusual. There have been an average of over 190 personnel items reported in the board agenda each month this year.
There is no regular contract agenda item on this agenda, either. This is highly unusual. There have been an average of 32 contracts per month this year, worth an average of $105,000 each.
There are multiple contracts for eleven elementary portables that are up for approval in the consent agenda before the action item about elementary structure for next year. This order seems inappropriate.
The addition of AP Psychology and AP Human Geography align with district and site goals of expanding access to advanced coursework, increasing college and career readiness, and promoting student well-being through mental health education.
Special Services: Eliminate 1.0 FTE Special Services Coordinator and 2.0 FTE Program Manager positions. The document states that 1.0 FTE Coordinator from Wellness and Engagement will be transferred to Special Services but this is not reflected in the listed positions.
Wellness and Engagement: Reduce 1.0 FTE Director to 1.0 FTE Coordinator.
Human Resources: Eliminate 1.0 FTE Director.
One time moving $7.9M from unrestricted to restricted spending will help restore the required reserve.
Temporarily transferring $16.6M from other district funds will help with cash flow. There was $3.2M in Medi-Cal reimbursements left in the fund at the end of last year that SRCS is working to appropriately expense.
“To date, we have identified potential solutions totaling 3.5M (2.8M in unrestricted funds and 0.8M in restricted funds). This includes the elimination of co-teaching (stipends), elimination of Restorative Intervention Support, and reduction in School Based Therapists.”
Co-teaching stipends are part of the SRCS/SRTA Contract, article 14.5.3 and would need to be negotiated. This $3,000 stipend was calculated to cover the prep time these teachers forfeit to collaborate with each other.
Non-management positions will be considered for round two, with a presentation for Board discussion in January and action in February 2026.
As a reminder, SCOE requires the following corrective action by SRCS
December 8, 2025 Preliminary Solvency and Fiscal Stabilization Plan due to SCOE
February 16, 2026 submit a board-approved Fiscal Stabilization Plan to SCOE
i. The plan shall include multiyear financial projections for restricted, unrestricted, and combined funds, with detailed assumptions supporting the projections.
ii. The plan shall address implementation of ongoing expenditure reductions sufficient to eliminate the structural deficit and restore fiscal stability.
SCOE will
Decide about assigning a fiscal advisor with stay and rescind authority, paid for by the county superintendent, to advise the district on its financial condition by December 15, 2025
SRTA members appreciate that there are reductions to the district office administrative staff. The new organization chart is more streamlined than all those presented to the board in over a decade.
Is the attached Potential Solutions the “Preliminary Solvency and Fiscal Stabilization Plan” shared with SCOE by Dec 8, 2025?
Where is an analysis of the medical reimbursements for mental health SRCS can collect compared to the expense for offering mental health services?
What is the priority with these proposed cuts? When there is more funding available, how will the decision be made on what to restore first? If trust is to be rebuilt, a restoration plan requires transparency.
I.2. (Action) Update on Board Request on Elementary Consolidation Plan
● Structure of elementary schools for the 2026-2027 school year and beyond
○ Create new TK-3 and 4-6 campuses
○ Keep all sites as TK-6 campuses
Options for distribution of special education classes across school sites
○ Distribute more equitably across all sites
○ Concentrate where space is available
● Approval of boundaries
Financial Impact –
Cost neutral staffing
Cost neutral bus routes or possible $135,000 for one additional bus route for Grade Level TK-6.
Funding for the estimated fiscal impact will come from the Santa Rosa facilities bond, with an amount estimated between $9,000,000 and $21,000,000 over the next five years dependent on the various scenarios being presented.
All of this change is said to be cost neutral to the general fund. SRTA members would appreciate SRCS Admin and board currently pause this entire discussion, instead spending their limited energies on righting our financial ship, and resolving the issues at sites which have recently consolidated. Leave the elementary sites configuration and boundaries as they currently are, until this financial crisis has been resolved. There is enough chaos in our system right now due to prior decisions and planned elimination of services. Students and staff will be able to withstand changes far better from established communities, than while simultaneously trying to establish new communities.
Can the board accept the transparent practice of announcing anticipated future special board meetings at the prior regular board meeting, allowing stakeholders to plan accordingly?
SRTA members are encouraged to prepare for the upcoming agenda items.
Pivot Charter School Renewal
7-11 Committee List
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Update
Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Formation
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, announcing, 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 – transporting as needed for sports?
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
Cell Phone Board Policy Presentation and Update (September 2025)
Staff was recently 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. Valuable input will not be included in the results from this faulty survey..
Appointment of Vacant Committee Position: Board Finance Subcommittee (September 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)
First Draft of the District Safety Plan (delayed from September 2024)
Sharing the Library Master Plan with implementation expectation
Officially Closing Learning House, and other sites
SRACS Accelerated Charter Material Revision Request (delayed)
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. Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting Dates
Monday, January 5, 2026
Monday, February 2, 2026
Monday, March 2, 2026
Monday, April 6, 2026
Monday, May 4, 2026
Monday, June 1, 2026
REUNIÓN ORDINARIA DE LA JUNTA DIRECTIVA
Escuelas de la ciudad de Santa Rosa
10 de diciembre de 2025
Híbrido: Cámaras del Consejo del Ayuntamiento de Santa Rosa
Tómese el tiempo para revisar la siguiente versión abreviada de la agenda.Haga clic aquí para ver la agenda completa.Tiene enlaces en vivo sobre muchos temas con más información. Si desea comentar con la junta sobre los próximos temas, envíe un correo electrónico a agendacomments@srcs.k12.ca.us. Por favor, envíe una copia a wearesrta@gmail.com en su correo electrónico.
Se recomienda a los miembros que asisten en línea que agreguen SRTA al frente de su nombre de cliente de Zoom.
Temas de la sesión cerrada:
A.1. Comentarios públicos sobre los temas de la agenda de sesiones cerradas Para comentar, envíe un correo electrónico a Melanie Martin a mmartinsrcs.k12.ca.us.
Esta es una oportunidad para que los miembros del público hablen con la junta únicamente sobre temas de sesión cerrada.
Sin detalles sobre los temas de la agenda de las sesiones cerradas, es imposible que el público sepa cuándo brindar información sobre los temas que se están revisando.
B.1. Readmisión de estudiantes (Números de caso: 2024/25-06, 2023/24-12, 2024/25-18)
B.2. Expulsión de estudiantes (Caso n.° 2025/26-04)
B.3. Disciplina/Despido/Liberación de Empleados Públicos
B.4. Reunión con el negociador laboral – Nombre del representante designado que asistió: Dra. Vicki Zands (SRCS); nombre de las organizaciones: SRTA, CSEA Santa Rosa 75, Sindicato de Teamsters 665
B.6 Evaluación del desempeño de los empleados públicos (Cargo del empleado evaluado: Superintendente, Superintendente Asociado, Superintendente Auxiliar, Directores, Subdirectores, Subdirectores Auxiliares, Coordinadores)
C. VOLVER A CONVOCAR A LA SESIÓN ABIERTA ORDINARIA (6:00 pm)
D. Informe de fin de año del Presidente de la Junta
E. Organización Anual de la Junta (Elección de Autoridades para el próximo año)
Los miembros de SRTA están interesados en tener una junta directiva bien informada y que funcione bien.
F. Informes (Presidentes de Organizaciones Laborales, Superintendente y Miembros de Junta Directiva)
G. Comentarios públicos sobre temas no incluidos en la agenda y temas de consentimiento
Se invita a los miembros de SRTA a completar las tarjetas azules en la reunión de la junta para hacer comentarios públicos. Se han suspendido los comentarios en línea, a menos que un miembro de la junta asista de forma remota. Les rogamos que estén preparados para respetar el límite de tiempo de tres minutos o la posible reducción de último minuto. Los comentarios se han limitado a un máximo de 60 segundos, con un límite en el tiempo total dedicado a los comentarios públicos. En este momento, solo se abordan los puntos que no están en la agenda, con la excepción de los puntos de consentimiento (véase la sección F).
Se solicitan comentarios en la reunión de la junta para aportar la perspectiva de un miembro y compartir experiencias reales del impacto de las políticas y prácticas del distrito en los estudiantes y el personal.
Los oradores se limitan a aquellos en persona (a menos que un miembro de la junta asista en línea).
Los comentarios tienen mayor impacto cuando están bien expresados, compuestos y razonables.
Existe una gran preocupación de que las decisiones fiscales que se están tomando empeorará los problemas de inscripción en SRCS.
Chromebooks
Los miembros de SRTA están preocupados por la decisión de no comprar Chromebooks de reemplazo. Existe la preocupación de que no haya suficientes unidades para facilitar las pruebas SBAC. Los cambios en la práctica, que consisten en recolectar unidades individuales y distribuir carritos limitados a las escuelas primarias y secundarias, se están implementando rápidamente.
El impacto que esto tiene en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje parece no haberse tenido en cuenta. La nueva clase optativa de secundaria es una de las varias clases que dependen en gran medida de los Chromebooks. La investigación en la enseñanza no se puede llevar a cabo sin Chromebooks cuando nuestros centros han eliminado las enciclopedias y los diccionarios.
SRCS aún no cuenta con un plan tecnológico y no existe una política clara sobre quién es responsable fiscalmente de los Chromebooks dañados. A las familias no se les ofrece un seguro que cubra esta posible responsabilidad.
Es necesario analizar con atención los fondos generales ahora mismo, modificando las fuentes de financiación según sea necesario para afrontar la crisis financiera. Quizás sea razonable utilizar temporalmente los fondos de bonos para eliminar el caos y las pérdidas para la educación que se producirán con la pérdida de Chromebooks.
Todos los elementos de consentimiento son aprobados por la Junta en una sola moción, a menos que un miembro de la Junta solicite que un elemento se elimine y se discuta por separado.
Este mes no hay ningún informe de personal en esta agenda.Esto es sumamente inusual. Este año, se han reportado en promedio más de 190 asuntos de personal en la agenda de la junta cada mes.
En esta agenda tampoco hay ningún punto relativo a contratos regulares.Esto es muy inusual. Este año se han producido un promedio de 32 contratos al mes, con un valor promedio de 105.000 dólares cada uno.
Hay varios contratos para once escuelas primarias portátiles que están pendientes de aprobación en la agenda de consentimiento antes del punto de acción sobre la estructura de la escuela primaria para el próximo año.Esta orden parece inapropiada.
La incorporación de Psicología AP y Geografía Humana AP se alinea con los objetivos del distrito y del sitio de ampliar el acceso a cursos avanzados, aumentar la preparación para la universidad y la carrera y promover el bienestar de los estudiantes a través de la educación en salud mental.
Costo de los libros de texto: Geografía Humana AP: $2,500 en Maria Carrillo HS y Santa Rosa HS Psicología AP: $18,000 en Maria Carrillo HS y Santa Rosa HS
Baile Hip Hop — SIN COSTO en Montgomery HS Fuentes de financiación: Lotería y donaciones
I. TEMAS DE DISCUSIÓN/ACCIÓN
I.1. Partidas presupuestarias
a. (Acción) Primer Informe Fiscal Interino 2025-26
Aún no se ha adjuntado ninguna presentación. Esto se ha convertido en un preocupante suceso recurrente en las agendas de la junta.
(versiones restringidas, sin restricciones y combinadas)
El distrito espera un Análisis de Riesgo de Salud Fiscal (FHRA) del Equipo de Asistencia de Gestión y Crisis Fiscal (FCMAT) en enero de 2026.
Hay ligeros cambios entre las cifras del presupuesto aprobado y las nuevas cifras proyectadas.
Se presupuestaron ingresos totales para el 25-26 de $238 millones y gastos de $252 millones, $14 millones más que los ingresos.
Este año, los servicios y otros gastos operativos siguen representando el 25 % del presupuesto.
Proyección Plurianual por líneas presupuestarias (página 30)
La proyección plurianual muestra una disminución en los saldos finales de nuestro año de $1 millón este año, -$15 millones el próximo año y -$32 millones el año siguiente.
b. (Acción) Plan de estabilización fiscal y recomendaciones a la Junta
No se adjunta la carta preliminar del Plan de solvencia y estabilización fiscal del 8 de diciembre de 2025 que debe presentarse ante la SCOE el 8 de diciembre.
Los posibles cambios administrativos eliminan 9 puestos y suponen un ahorro de 1.9 millones de dólares.
El gabinete se reducirá y quedará integrado únicamente por los tres superintendentes adjuntos y el oficial de información pública.
Se creará el Departamento de Servicios Estudiantiles para abarcar los Servicios Educativos, los Servicios Especiales y el Bienestar y la Participación.
Servicios Educativos: Eliminar 1.0 FTE de Director Ejecutivo, 1.0 FTE de Director y 3.0 FTE de Coordinadores.
Servicios Especiales: Eliminar los puestos de Coordinador de Servicios Especiales (1.0 FTE) y Gerente de Programa (2.0 FTE). El documento indica que el Coordinador (1.0 FTE) de Bienestar y Participación se transferirá a Servicios Especiales, pero esto no se refleja en los puestos listados.
Bienestar y compromiso: reducir 1.0 FTE de director a 1.0 FTE de coordinador.
Recursos Humanos: Eliminar 1.0 Director FTE.
Transferir en una sola ocasión US$7.9 millones del gasto no restringido al gasto restringido ayudará a restablecer la reserva necesaria.
La transferencia temporal de $16.6 millones de otros fondos del distrito contribuirá al flujo de caja. Al final del año pasado, quedaban $3.2 millones en reembolsos de Medi-Cal en el fondo, que SRCS está trabajando para contabilizar adecuadamente.
Hasta la fecha, hemos identificado posibles soluciones por un total de 3,5 millones (2,8 millones en fondos no restringidos y 0,8 millones en fondos restringidos). Esto incluye la eliminación de la co enseñanza (estipendios), la eliminación del Apoyo a la Intervención Restaurativa y la reducción de terapeutas escolares.
Los estipendios por co enseñanza forman parte del Contrato SRCS/SRTA, artículo 14.5.3, y deberán negociarse. Este estipendio de $3,000 se calculó para cubrir el tiempo de preparación que estos docentes pierden al colaborar entre sí.
Se considerarán puestos no gerenciales para la segunda ronda, con una presentación para discusión en la Junta en enero y acción en febrero de 2026.
Como recordatorio, SCOE requiere la siguiente acción correctiva por parte de SRCS
8 de diciembre de 2025 Plan Preliminar de Solvencia y Estabilización Fiscal debido a SCOE
16 de febrero de 2026 presentar un Plan de Estabilización Fiscal aprobado por la junta a la SCOE
i. El plan incluirá proyecciones financieras plurianuales para fondos restringidos, no restringidos y combinados, con supuestos detallados que respalden las proyecciones.
ii. El plan abordará la implementación de reducciones continuas del gasto suficientes para eliminar el déficit estructural y restablecer la estabilidad fiscal.
La SCOE lo hará
Decidir sobre la asignación de un asesor fiscal con autoridad para suspender y rescindir, pagado por el superintendente del condado, para asesorar al distrito sobre su situación financiera antes del 15 de diciembre de 2025
Los miembros de SRTA agradecen las reducciones en el personal administrativo de la oficina de distrito. El nuevo organigrama es más ágil que todos los presentados a la junta en más de una década.
¿Las Soluciones Potenciales adjuntas son el “Plan Preliminar de Solvencia y Estabilización Fiscal” que se compartirá con SCOE antes del 8 de diciembre de 2025?
¿Dónde hay un análisis de los reembolsos médicos por salud mental que SRCS puede recaudar en comparación con el gasto por ofrecer servicios de salud mental?
¿Cuál es la prioridad con estos recortes propuestos? Cuando haya más fondos disponibles, ¿cómo se decidirá qué restaurar primero? Para restablecer la confianza, un plan de restauración requiere transparencia.
I.2. (Acción) Actualización sobre la solicitud de la Junta Directiva sobre el Plan de Consolidación de Escuelas Primarias
● Estructura de las escuelas primarias para el año escolar 2026-2027 y posteriores
○ Crear nuevos campus para los grados TK-3 y 4-6
○ Mantener todos los sitios como campus TK-6
Opciones para la distribución de clases de educación especial en los distintos planteles escolares
○ Distribuir de manera más equitativa en todos los sitios
○ Concéntrese donde haya espacio disponible
● Aprobación de límites
Impacto financiero –
Dotación de personal neutral en costes
Rutas de autobús sin costo alguno o posible costo de $135,000 para una ruta de autobús adicional para los grados TK-6.
El financiamiento para el impacto fiscal estimado provendrá del bono de instalaciones de Santa Rosa, con un monto estimado entre $9,000,000 y $21,000,000 durante los próximos cinco años dependiendo de los diversos escenarios que se presenten.
Se dice que todo este cambio no tendrá ningún costo para el fondo general. Los miembros de SRTA agradecerían que la administración y la junta directiva de SRCS suspendieran esta discusión y, en su lugar, dedicaran sus limitadas energías a enderezar el rumbo financiero y resolver los problemas en las escuelas que se han consolidado recientemente. Se recomienda mantener la configuración y los límites de las escuelas primarias como están hasta que se resuelva esta crisis financiera. Ya hay suficiente caos en nuestro sistema debido a decisiones previas y la eliminación planificada de servicios. Los estudiantes y el personal podrán soportar mejor los cambios desde las comunidades establecidas que si simultáneamente intentan establecer nuevas comunidades.
¿Puede la junta aceptar la práctica transparente de anunciar las futuras reuniones especiales de la junta en la reunión regular anterior, permitiendo a las partes interesadas planificar en consecuencia?
Se anima a los miembros de SRTA a prepararse para los próximos puntos de la agenda.
Renovación de la escuela autónoma Pivot
Lista del Comité 7-11
Actualización del Sistema de Apoyo de Múltiples Niveles (MTSS)
Formación del Área del Plan Local de Educación Especial (SELPA)
Información aún pendiente solicitada por los miembros de la Junta
Medina- Datos de instrucción AP con número de años de experiencia de los profesores
-Aclaración sobre la adopción de políticas de la junta que requieren una mayoría de los miembros de la junta en lugar de una mayoría de los presentes/votantes.
– considerar clubes o equipos de deportes electrónicos
Caston- Informe financiero de financiación del sitio con diversos montos y fuentes
-estrategia del programa de atletismo en todo el distrito
-Actualizar la política 3510 sobre la reducción de residuos como tema de debate
– cómo se apoyan diferentes programas deportivos con mítines, anuncios, etc.
Prak – Informe del nivel de mantenimiento de campos de césped
– Actualización sobre deportes a nivel MS
Kirby: ¿Agregar un entrenador asistente de lucha libre para mujeres?
DeLaTorre-Tarifa de instalaciones, ¿posibles reducciones?
Jenkins – ¿transporte según sea necesario para los deportes?
SRTA analiza la programación futura de los siguientes elementos:
Presentación y actualización de la política de la Junta de Teléfonos Celulares (septiembre de 2025)
Recientemente, el personal tuvo la oportunidad de completar una encuesta sobre teléfonos celulares. Todas las preguntas eran obligatorias, y las opciones de respuesta no siempre permitían una respuesta precisa. No se incluirán aportaciones valiosas en los resultados de esta encuesta defectuosa.
Designación de un puesto vacante en el Subcomité de Finanzas de la Junta Directiva (septiembre de 2025)
Datos de la Encuesta Panorama y la Youth Truthl (agosto de 2025)
Datos de prácticas restaurativas (marzo de 2025)
Aspectos destacados del programa VAPA (febrero de 2025)
Plan y cronograma para la implementación de las recomendaciones del Dr. Gillespie sobre Servicios Especiales (enero de 2025)
Primer borrador del Plan de Seguridad del Distrito (retrasado desde septiembre de 2024)
Compartir el Plan Maestro de la Biblioteca con expectativas de implementación
Cierre oficial de Learning House y otros sitios
Solicitud de revisión acelerada del material de la Charter del SRACS (retrasada)
Plan para el programa de apoyo a la vivienda del personal con los ingresos de Fir Ridge
Hasta que el distrito tome una decisión, los fondos provenientes de la venta de la propiedad de Fir Ridge se encuentran estancados y pierden valor a medida que el costo de la vivienda sigue aumentando. La puesta en marcha de un programa podría ayudar a SRCS a atraer y retener al personal de CSEA. El impacto potencial de los fondos disminuye con el tiempo.
Política de Voz Estudiantil
L.3. Fechas de las reuniones del Subcomité de Finanzas de la Junta
B.5. 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.6 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
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. Please be prepared to observe the three minute time limit or the imposition of a possible last minute reduction in the time limit. Comments have been limited to as little as 60 seconds, with a limit on the total time spent on public comments. 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
Comments are most impactful when they are well spoken, composed and reasonable.
G-1 is about the fiscal health of the district, so all commenters on this topic should wait until then.
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.
EdJoin shows a total of 67 current postings for 171 jobs in SRCS. There are fourteen certificated opening postings for fourteen positions (one more than the last meeting.) There are fifty-three current classified postings for one-hundred seventy-one job openings (seventeen less than the last meeting.) There are no certificated and no classified management positions posted.
SRTA heartily welcomes Jhon Everth Ortiz Cubidez (MHS), Devyn Gilman (LBES), Elizabeth Brooks (PHS), Alfred Frimpong (MHS/HSMS) and Stephen Drapkin (JMES).
Changes to classified staff includes three new hires and three resignations. They leave taking with them 3 years, 10 months and 8 days of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
F.4. Ratification of Contracts Under $15,000
Summary
#
Provider
Cost
Description
Charter
4
Common Ground Society
$500.00
diversity and equity presentation for SRACS
Secondary
1
Bryan Price
$9,109.50
CPR for SRCS Coaches
2
Career Technical Education Foundation of Sonoma County
No Direct Cost
provide HS student internships through the Path to Purpose Program
3
California Agricultural Teachers’ Induction Program
$8,100.00
Induction support, mentoring, coaching and technical assistance to agricultural teachers in their first or second year of teaching
facilitate the development of integrated grade level teams and pathways at EAHS
3
Imagine Learning
$60,330.00
Teachers for remote online instruction of Chem at MHS and Spanish at EAHS.
District
2
Adroit Advanced Technologies
$206,000.00
Transportation services for students with disabilities
The contract for EAHS raises questions about the focus of the site. There has been tremendous energy put into centering the site on CTE. Then last year there was a decision to concentrate on Project Based Learning. This current contract is to support Integrated Pathways. Are these intentions coming from the staff?
How does an additional contract for transportation impact our agreement with West County?
F.8. Approval of Resolution 2025/26-43 Notice of Intent to Convey Easements to the City of Santa Rosa
The City of Santa Rosa is replacing water mains that run underground at MHS. This agreement will sell two strips of land above new water mains to the city for $190,157.00
F.9. Adoption of Resolution No. 2025/26-44 Supporting Award and Approval of Lease-Leaseback Agreement with Core Construction for the SRHS DeSoto Hall Modernization & Theater Roofing Project
F.10. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Alternate Design-Build Agreement with Wright Contracting for the Helen Lehman Elementary School TK Classroom Buildings Project
F.12. Approval of Authorized Signatory for California Department of Education, Early Childhood Education Contract
This resolution authorizes the Director of Expanded Learning and State & Federal Programs to be a signatory for the California State Preschool Program (CSPP).
F.13. Approval of Updated Reclassification Assessment i-Ready
The Board approved i-Ready as a local assessment to determine reclassification eligibility for multilingual learners in grades K-6 on 5/14/25. The Board will consider adding iReady for grades 7 and 8 to determine reclassification, allowing us the ability to include sites currently using iReady for Grades 7 and 8. Approval will allow for Grade 7 and 8 i-Ready language arts benchmark scores to be added, consistent with the K-6 sites currently using iReady, as evidence for meeting the basic skills requirement for reclassification to Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) status.
This is updated with current year numbers and projections through the end of next year.
SRCS predicts deficit cash on hand of $40.5M in December ‘25 and $22M in March ‘26. Those can be covered by loans from Sonoma County for expected property taxes. The ending balance is negative $2.8M, so if SRCS can cut $2.8M this year, they will end with a zero balance. Next year SRCS predicts deficit cash on hand for the entire year (except April), with deficits of $62.1M in December ‘26 and $34.3M in March ‘27, with an ending balance of -$16.2M.
December 8, 2025 Preliminary Solvency and Fiscal Stabilization Plan due to SCOE
February 16, 2026 submit a board-approved Fiscal Stabilization Plan to SCOE
i. The plan shall include multiyear financial projections for restricted, unrestricted, and combined funds, with detailed assumptions supporting the projections.
ii. The plan shall address implementation of ongoing expenditure reductions sufficient to eliminate the structural deficit and restore fiscal stability.
SCOE will
Assign a fiscal advisor with stay and rescind authority, paid for by the county superintendent, to advise the district on its financial condition by December 15, 2025
Assist in developing a financial plan that will enable the district to meet its future obligations
Contract with the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team to perform a Fiscal Health Risk Analysis.
The entire community wants to avoid state takeover. SRTA members want immediate identification of substantial specific budget solutions to put SRCS on solid financial ground. This seems a nearly insurmountable task, so inviting knowledgeable people to the table to help seems prudent.
The last board agenda listed Updates from the Fiscal Stabilization Advisory Committee as a future agenda item. The committee has met twice this fall and was informed their focus is shifting to increasing revenue. They have reviewed district policy on sponsorships.
SRCS had an Alternative Education Committee that met five times during the 23-24 school year. There was a board presentation on their recommendations on April 17, 2024. They identified the shift to Community Schools as meeting the alternative needs for elementary students and focused their efforts on secondary students with the following five prioritized recommendations.
Expand ISP for secondary students, including expanding online credits. That has just been implemented.
Middle School Opportunity Program.
High School Onsite Intervention Programs – up to 85 students in a school within a school model
Model Similar to Big Picture Learning Grades 7-12
Grade 7-12 CTE Magnet Programs
The willingness to sit on a committee when the recommendations are not implemented is diminishing. There is a broad agreement that comprehensive education does not work for all students. It is understandable that families would seek programs outside of SRCS to better meet the needs of their students.
SRCS has not adopted a district vision for alternative settings for students with an implementation plan and timeline. Furthermore, no data is included in this presentation.
Three of the seven ISP teachers have been invited to the table for the board meeting to answer questions directly about the isp program. SRTA appreciates having members included in a presentation to the board.
G.3. (Action) Approval of Variable Term Waiver for Administrative Services Credential for Debra LaPrath
G.4. (Action) Establishment of the Annual Organizational Meeting of the Board of Education
The Board is asked to establish the annual organizational meeting of the Board of Education on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
J.1. Future Board Discussion Items (not included in this agenda)
Can the board accept the transparent practice of announcing future special board meetings at the prior regular board meeting, allowing stakeholders to plan accordingly?
SRTA members are encouraged to prepare for the upcoming agenda items.
Approval of First Interim
Annual Organization of the Board
Fiscal Stabilization Recommendations
Elementary Consolidation Plan
Recently and Still Pending Information from the Board
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, announcing, 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 – transporting as needed for sports?
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
Cell Phone Board Policy Presentation and Update (September 2025)
Staff was recently 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. Valuable input will not be included in the results from this faulty survey..
Appointment of Vacant Committee Position: Board Finance Subcommittee (September 2025)
Panorama and Youth Truth Survey Data (August 2025)
Restorative Practices Data (March 2025)
Alternate Education Update (December 2024, Feb 2025)
There is a strong need for Alternative placements for secondary students who need more services than our comprehensive schools are able to provide. How can SRCS meet the needs of these students during these tough financial times? Is there data that the ISP program is sufficient to meet this need?
VAPA Program Highlights (Feb 2025)
Plan and timeline for implementation of Dr. Gillespie’s recommendations around Special Services (January 2025)
First Draft of the District Safety Plan (delayed from September 2024)
Sharing the Library Master Plan with implementation expectation
Officially Closing Learning House, and other sites
SRACS Accelerated Charter Material Revision Request (delayed)
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.
The Special Services Department will provide regular updates to the Board of these contracts. The contracts are adjusted on a regular basis as special education needs change. This will also be discussed during a special services update to the Board.
Non-Public Agency Contracts $14,462,185.41 These contracts are for positions SRCS is unable to hire: Aides, SLP, ALs Interpreters, LVN, and Physical Therapists.
