The public record
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 · School board meeting record
The 30-second read
Summary pendingNo meeting-wide AI summary is available yet. The item-by-item board record below uses the published agenda materials.
Why it matters
The board digest below separates planned business from source-backed outcomes.
What happens next
No later meeting or follow-up date is stated in the reviewed record.
1 statement
Commented on statements that board members and supporters made at the last board meeting.
Official recordCommented on statements that board members and supporters made at the last board meeting.
Commissioner Juan Yniguez
This source published text without speaker turns, so speakers and timestamps are not shown.
The opening of 73,115 stored characters
- I call the meeting of the San Juan Unified School District Board of Education to order. The closed session items on tonight's agenda are, item one, Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision D, paragraph one in two cases. Magali Kincaid, Benito Juarez Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Elections Now, Juan Yniguez, Carolina Flores, Damaris Canton versus San Juan Unified School District complaint for violation of the California Voting Rights Act and in the alternative for violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the California Constitution, Sacramento Superior Court case number 34-2020-00286475. And Carolina Flores, Neighborhood Elections Now, petitioner's versus San Juan Unified School District, Paula Villescaz in her official capacity of Board President, respondents, verified petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the first amendment, the California Constitution, California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, Sacramento Superior Court number 34-2021-80003644-CU-WM-GDS. I'm going to check with staff to see if we have any speaker cards on this closed session agenda item. We do not. Do we have any written comments submitted on this item? We do not. We will now move into closed session and we will return to open session at 6:30. I call the meeting of the San Juan Unified School District Board of Education back to order. Board meetings are now being held in person in the boardroom at the district office and the public is welcome to attend. Thank you all who have joined us. Alternatively the meeting may also be viewed on the district's YouTube channel, where it is being live streamed. The meeting is being audio and video recorded, and the recording may capture sounds and images of those attending this meeting. The recording will be posted on the district website. At this moment I invite you to please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance. - [Attendees] I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all - Good evening and welcome. I'm Paula Villescaz and I am the Board President and to my right is Dr. Michael McKibbin, Board Vice President, to his right is Ms. Zima Creason, board clerk, to her right is Ms. Pam Costa, board member and board member Saul Hernandez has a family obligation and is joining us by telephone. Mr. Hernandez, can you confirm that you can hear us? - [Mr. Hernandez] I can, thank you very much. - Perfect, we hear you as well. To my left is Superintendent Kent Kern and to his left is Board Administrative Assistant Stephanie Cunningham. Before we begin, I'd like to remind the public that tonight is a special meeting of the Board of Education and public comment is only accepted regarding items that are listed on tonight's agenda. But we do appreciate your input and want to hear from you. If you wish to offer a general visitor comment regarding a topic that is not on tonight's agenda, you can offer a comment at a future regular board meeting, and our next regular board meeting is scheduled for August 10th. Now I'd like to review the two methods that are available to offer public comment for tonight's meeting. For those of you here in attendance, in person, I'd like, and would like to offer a public comment on items that are on the agenda, we ask that you please complete a speaker card that is over available by the door. I'll ask Mary to raise her hand, perfect. Thank you. And you will be called on at the appropriate time during the agenda. We ask that you please indicate on the speaker card at that time, if you need any translation services as well. The second option is to submit a public comment online using the comment form located on the district website at www.sanjuan.edu/boardmeeting. If you wish to submit a public comment on more than one agenda item, please submit a separate form for each item on which you are commenting. For this special meeting, all written comments received through the public comment form will be read on the record during the meeting subject to the time limits established in board bylaw 93-23. Comments may only be submitted on an agenda item up until the time the agenda item has been discussed. Please note that all public comments are subject to a two-minute limit or approximately 1500 characters. It is the board's interest to consider all comments. If you are using an interpreter or self translating your comment, we ask that translations be given as the comment is shared. Those who have indicated a need for translation when making their request to speak, maybe provided an additional two minutes to allow for translation of their original two-minute comment. With that, we are now at item D, approval of the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Is there a motion to approve the minutes for July 1st? - So moved. - It has been moved by Dr. McKibbin. Is there a second? - Second. - It's been seconded by Ms. Creason. We will be doing a roll call vote this evening. So Mr. Hernandez? We're all gonna take a vote on the approval of the minutes, Mr. Hernandez? - [Mr. Hernandez] Yes. - Ms. Costa? Ms. Creason? Dr. McKibbin? - Yes. - And I vote, aye. That was unanimous. We are at item E-1, our closed session expulsion actions, and there are no closed session actions to report. So with that, we are at item F, the consent calendar. I'm going to pause quickly to see, do we have any speaker cards or written comments on this item? - [Woman] No, we do not. Okay. Do any board members wish to remove any items from the consent calendar? Mr. Hernandez? - [Mr. Hernandez] No. - Great. Okay. With that, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? - [Ms. Costa] So moved. - It's been moved by Ms. Costa. Is there a second? - [Mr. McKibbin] Second. - Seconded by Dr. McKibbin. Again, we will do a roll call vote on the consent calendar and the motion is to approve the consent calendar. Mr. Hernandez? - [Mr. Hernandez] Yes. - Ms. Costa? Ms. Creason? Dr. McKibbin? - [Mr. McKibbin] Aye. - And I vote, aye. That was unanimous. We are now at item H-1, California Voting Rights Act, public hearing, Map Review public hearing number one, Ms. Simlick. - Thank you and good evening, President Villescaz, board members, Superintendent Kern, and Ms. Cunningham. This evening the superintendent is recommending that the board hold a public hearing regarding the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas. Prior to the public hearing, demographer Larry Ferchaw from Cooperative Strategies will present drafts of proposed trustee area boundary maps. Following his presentation and any comments or questions by the board to Mr. Ferchaw, the public hearing will be held for the board to receive input from the community on the proposed trustee area maps. As a board might recall, Mr. Ferchaw presented information to the board on March 31st, 2020 on the process and potential criteria for the drawing of the trustee area maps. I'd like to, again, introduce Mr. Ferchaw at this time. - Thank you members of the board, Superintendent Kern, Larry Ferchaw. Good not to be a little square on a screen this time around. It's been a little while. So the presentation we have, hopefully that's going to come up on the screen, is to walk through just all of the map options that have been posted to the district's website for the last week as required under the elections code. You'll note we have eight different map options, four of which have five trustee areas and four of which have seven trustee areas. So we have a variety of options to go through. We'll just bring that presentation up. Just a reminder on the timeline that we're working under. This is our first public hearing on the maps scenarios. After tonight's hearing, we'll have an opportunity, if there's any comments or suggestions for changes to make those changes, and, sorry. - It should be displayed momentarily. - Used to being on Zoom, not. All right, so there we go. Here's the timeline. So recall the public hearings that we've held on the maps prior to drawing them. The maps again, have been posted since last week on the 6th for members of the community to review, tonight's public hearing to introduce those maps and get feedback from the board and the community on potential changes. We'll revise those scenarios as necessary, come up with new maps as necessary. And those will get posted to the district's website by a week from today. And then we're scheduled for July 27th to hold another hearing on the maps. And that would be the board's opportunity to select a map and finalize its process of moving from at-large to by area method of election. You'll see, we also have noted that new census data is going to become available. We're using the 2010 census data still because that's all that's available, but sometime between now and October, we'll have updated data with which to adjust these maps prior to the 2022 election. So that's just the process again. Let's see. And we have the first set of scenarios are the five trustee area scenarios. You can go ahead and go to scenario one. There we go. Kind of walk you through the layout of the maps. And spend a little more time on the first one to explain it, and then we'll pick up the pace as we go through the remaining seven of them. So in all of the maps that are five areas, area one is yellow, two is green, three is blue, four is, three is red, four is blue and five is purple. So you'll see those color codes on the maps, as well as in the legend in the upper left-hand corner of the screen, that identifies the trustee area number. The board members residences are noted on these maps just for informational purposes. They were not considered in the drawing of the areas as the board had instructed. So these are just on there so we know where folks reside and help some of the sequencing aspects as well. So next to each board member's name is a notation of when that board members term is up. So we understand that process as well. We've noted high schools on the map. So you can see which facilities are in which of the trustee areas. And then in the lower right-hand corner, you see sequencing options because we have situations where we have board members, incumbent board members who are paired in one area. We have open areas that we have to cycle for election. And so there's different options of how we can do that. So you'll see, in some of these scenarios, there's two or three different sequencing options that are noted with a letter, so A, B or C is the most we have. And some, we have only one option for sequencing, and it just depends on how the board pairings work and where those occur. So in scenario one, we have two sequencing options, either areas one and five would be up for election in 2022 or areas four and five would be up for election in 2022. And that would be part of the board's decision on a map like this, if this were the map that the board would select. The board would pick a map and then also a sequencing option to go with that map for approval. As far as the areas served, you can see that in area one, we started off in the Arden-Arcade area and work our way up into North Highlands, area two being the other part of Arden Arcade and coming into Carmichael. Area three being the rest of North Highlands, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights, and a little bit of Carmichael leftover. Area four in Fair Oaks, Gold River, and some of Citrus Heights, and then area five being the remainder of Citrus Heights and an Orangevale. Note that all the major roads, where the most of the major roads, it would be virtually impossible to label all the streets on these type of maps. So if that's an interest, we can certainly produce larger scale maps that can get posted to the website that would list all the streets, that's just the general layout of this particular scenario. So this is scenario one. And then we can go to the next slide. This is the wall of numbers slide and I'll highlight what is important or what we'd like to focus on in these maps is, in this process, we're first looking for population balance so that the difference between the largest and smallest areas is within our 10% variance. And I won't spoil the surprise by telling you that all the maps we've produced are within that legal requirement of population balance. So you don't have to do the math for us there. The other thing that we're looking at, are there anything we can do to enhance the ability of members of protected classes as defined under the Federal Voting Rights Act, to be able to influence the outcome of elections. And conversely, we're not doing anything to inhibit members of protected classes from being able to influence the outcome of elections. So we look at the citizen voting age population, just helpfully abbreviated as a CVAP, to see what areas are we creating increased influence for members of protected classes. And so if we look at scenario one and we look at trustee area one, again, remember that's the yellow area on the Western side of the district, we see that our Hispanic, Latino population on citizen voting age population is about 17 and a half percent, which is about five percentage points larger than the district wide average. The African-American population in that trustee area is 12 and three quarters percent, which is about seven percentage points higher than the district average. And then the Asian population is at six and two thirds percent, which is about two percentage points higher than the district average. So we're seeing areas of increased influence for members of protected classes, what we're not seeing in this scenario or any of the maps that we've produced as a majority minority district. So we're not able to create an area where a majority of the citizen voting age population consists of protected classes, given the population of the district, the dispersion of the population, it's not possible to create an area where a majority of the residents would be of protected class, one in particular, or even grouped together. It's just the nature of the demographics of this district that we don't see a real high concentration area for any particular protected classes within the district. So you'll see varying degrees of increase throughout the remaining seven scenarios, but just wanted to lay that out at the beginning, that we aren't able to create a majority Latino district or a majority African-American district or a majority Asian district through this process. So go to the next one, which is scenario two. And I often flip back and forth to see what's the difference between them because they start blending into one. But you can recall back that one and two kind of went, kind of a diagonal East West between areas one and two and the Arden-Arcade, North Highlands area, in scenario two it's more of a north south divide that you can see there. So that's one of the differences there. So it's mostly Arden Arcade, the portion of the city of Sacramento that's within the district and some of Carmichael that are an area one. Area two, the Northern part of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands is in that particular area, and then portions of Carmichael as well. Area three would be the rest of Carmichael, the majority of Fair Oaks, Gold River, portions of Orangevale, and a little bit of Citrus Heights works its way into area three. Area four is how about half of Citrus Heights and Orangevale. And then scenario five is the remainder of Citrus Heights and Orangevale. You'll see, on this one, there's only one sequencing option that we've laid out based on where board members reside. There's only one an uninhabited area by a current board member. So there's only one sequencing option for this particular map. We can go to the next slide, which is the demographic information. We can see the Latino population on citizen voting age population in area one is a little bit lower, 14.92, still above the district average, but not quite as high as scenario one. And you can see the population for the African-American, 9%, again, not quite as high, we were at 12% in scenario one. And the Asian population a little bit higher than scenario one at 6.94%. So when you look at the difference between the two, the way scenario one area one, it just captures a little bit more of the African-American and Latino citizen voting age population, just the way that community is oriented in the way that area one is formed in scenario one, versus that North South divide that we see in scenario two. So, number three, again, we have that North South look to scenarios one and two. A little bit cleaner of a line between the two, less jagged as you go across there. So that's part of the difference that you see. So again, Southern half of Arden Arcade, and then some of the city of Sacramento and Carmichael are in area one. Area two would be the Northern half of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands, the rest of Carmichael or some of Carmichael. And then area three is mostly Carmichael, most of Carmichael and then portions of Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights as well. The portion of Citrus Heights South of Greenback Lane. Area four would be the majority of Fair Oaks, all of Gold River, Orangevale, and a little bit of Citrus Heights. And then area five is just Citrus Heights. So this one does a little bit more of a looking at communities and of cities and census designated places and keeping those together. It does create one area that's entirely Citrus Heights, obviously Citrus Heights is too large to be one trustee area. So it does still get divided but this does create area five as just a Citrus Heights trustee area, for example. And then all of the unincorporated communities on the Eastern side are all within one trustee area. So that's one of the features of this particular map. You can see, we have sequencing options A and B on this one with either one and four in 2022 or four and five in 2022 as the two options that we've outlined here based on where incumbents reside and what areas are open. And then the numbers on this one, area one again, would be the area to focus on for citizen voting age population, 15.41% Latino citizen voting age population. Again, that's a little bit higher than scenario two, not quite as high as scenario one. And then you can see the African-American population. It's actually a little bit larger in area two in this particular map, but still both above the district average between those two. And then the Asian population is at it's highest in area one at 7%. Number four. Scroll through my notes here. This is, area one, again, starting kind of, the geography of this gets pretty similar, right, we start in the West and move East. You can see that square shape of area one representing Arden Arcade and city of Sacramento that's within the district. Area two being the remainder of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands and portions of Carmichael as well as. And then area three would be the remainder of Carmichael and the majority of Fair Oaks and Gold River. Area four would be Fair Oaks, all of Orangevale and portions of Citrus Heights. And then area five would be Citrus Heights in that particular map. And we'll make one option on this one in terms of sequencing with areas four and five in 2022 and one, two and three in 2024. Numbers on that, 16.22% in area one for Latinos citizen voting age population, 9.6 and 6.98 for Asian and African American citizen voting age population. So higher than area, scenarios two and three, but still not quite as high as scenario one in terms of our Latinos citizen voting age, and African-American citizen voting age concentration in area one in the Western area. So that is the sprint through the first four options. And we can go to the next one. So this introduces the seven trustee areas scenario options, and we introduced two new colors to the mix as well. So one through five would remain the same color coding system and then, I'm terrible at identifying colors, we'll say area six is gold and area seven is aqua. I was never good at that in kindergarten. So again, starting in the West and working our way East has been the standard approach. So we'd have the Arden Arcade area west of Watt, South of Marconi in area one, as well as a portion of the city of Sacramento. Area two then is the Northern part of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands and portion of Carmichael. Area three would be the area, portion of Arden Arcade that is East of Watt, as well as portions of Carmichael. Area four, just a little bit of Carmichael left, and we put that in area four along with Fair Oaks, the portion of Fair Oaks that's west of Sunrise Boulevard and Southeast portion of the city of Citrus Heights. Five would be the most Fair Oaks, all of Gold River and portions of Orangevale and Citrus Heights. Six would be the majority of Orangevale and a little bit of Citrus Heights. And area seven would be the Northern part of Orangevale and the rest of Citrus Heights. Only one sequencing option on this one, you can see there one, five, six, and seven in 2022 and two, three and four in 2024. And in terms of the numbers, 18.47% Latinos citizen voting age population in area one, 12.72% African-American and seven, we'll call it 8% Asian population in area one. Just comparing that to our previous high watermarks, this is just a little bit above, by going to seven areas we're able to obviously make a little bit smaller of an area, and that allows for a little bit more concentration of the communities. And so you can see the citizen voting age population numbers increased slightly by going to seven areas by about a percentage point for the Latino population, virtually the same for the African-American population and about a percentage and a half point more for the Asian population in area one, by using seven areas instead of five. Those are just minor increases, but increase this to point out nonetheless. You can see across the others, they're pretty much the same, right at the district average, some are a little bit below the district average when we go to seven areas. So that's that slide. Go onto scenario two then. Okay. So in this one, we decided to make my life hard and flip the green and the yellow, but so in the yellow area one would be the Northern part of Arden Arcade and then going into North Highlands. Area two would be Southern part of Arden Arcade and the portions of the city of Sacramento. Area three would be the Eastern parts of Arden Arcade going into Carmichael and into Fair Oaks as well. Four would be the Northern portion of Carmichael. Again, that's the blue area around Del Campo High School, and then a small portion of Fair Oaks. And the Southern part of Citrus Heights. Five is all of Fair Oaks that's East of Sunrise, all of Gold River, portions of Orangevale and Citrus Heights. And then we have trustee area six, which is the gold area, which would be Citrus Heights and then area seven, which would be Citrus Heights and Orangevale. I think I got it at all. Only one sequencing option here and that's areas three, five, six and seven in 2022 and areas one, two and four in 2024. And if I'm not mistaken, this might be, this scenario is unique in one factor, I'm just double checking my notes here. This is the only one where all five board members miraculously appear in their own area across all eight options, nope. I'm sorry, yeah, that's correct. So just so happened that we have one scenario where that happened. Again, it wasn't on purpose. If it was on purpose we would have done a better job than some of the other maps, I'm sure. So just wanted to point out that feature to you. Numbers on scenario two, you can see we have two areas then, areas one and two, where our Latino citizen voting age population is a couple percentage points above the district average at 15 and 16%. Our African-American population in areas one and two, nine and a half and 10.6. So increases above the district average. And it's kind of taking two smaller increases above the district average in an adjacent trustee areas as opposed to scenario one where we kind of push that number up higher in just area one, similar when the Asian citizen voting age population, where the number is higher in both areas one and two, area two being a little bit higher at 7.44%. Okay. Scenario three then, and you'll see, scenario three and four start out the same as scenario one. Area one in yellow finds a home that is South of Marconi and West of Watt. That's something we seemed to have liked as we were creating these maps as a logical area to try to increase that citizen voting age population that you saw in scenario one. And then area two in scenario three is the Northern part of Arden Arcade, North Highlands, and a little bit of Carmichael. And then area three is kind of centered around, good portion of Carmichael, portion of Fair Oaks. And some of Citrus, no that doesn't make sense, I'm reading my notes that are not accurate. So I'm going to go based on my knowledge and say, that's going to be Carmichael and Arden Arcade. And then area four is coming around to be the rest of Carmichael, as well as the Southern part of Citrus Heights. Area five would be Citrus Heights and Orangevale. Area six, Gold River and Orangevale, and seven would be Citrus Heights and maybe a portion of Orangevale in there as well. You can see here because we have some pairings of board members, we have three different sequencing options. We have A, B and C, that would be up for the board to decide which sequencing options to go with with this particular map. But one, three, five, with the, option A is the evens and the odds, option B is one, three, five, six, two, four and seven. And then C is three, five, six, seven and one, two and four. So that's how those are sequenced. And then the numbers again, we'll just highlight that area one, like in scenario one continues to be the highest Latino, African-American and Asian citizen voting age population areas. And finally, scenario four, again, area one is the same, in this one, area two wraps around area one to take in the Eastern half of Arden Arcade as well as the Northern part and going into North Highlands, area two, area three, I'm sorry, would be the half of, Eastern half of Carmichael, Fair Oaks and that area. Area four would be the rest of, majority of Fair Oaks and going into Orangevale and Citrus Heights. Area five, Orangevale, Gold River. Area six, Orangevale and Citrus Heights divide, and then area seven would just be Citrus Heights. Just one sequencing option on that one. And then finally the numbers again, similar to scenarios one, three, one and three in the seven member options with the same demographics. So I know I talked a lot about maps and communities, but I certainly would be happy if there's any questions or any clarification I can provide on the maps or method, implications of any of the maps, I'd certainly be happy to answer that. - Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Just for awareness, the order of business will be as you presented to us, we'll do a quick round of questions if we have any for the four of us and for Mr. Hernandez on the phone, then I will officially open up a public hearing for public comment at that time. I just wanted to know what the plan was. At this time I'll turn it to my colleagues on the diocese and on the phone, are there any comments or questions at this time? Mr. Hernandez, we'll go ahead and start with you. - [Mr. Hernandez] Sure. One quick question. Larry, on five-three you mentioned that Citrus Heights could not have a board member because of the size of Citrus Heights. Can you elaborate on that? Very quickly for me please? - Sure, so on the five member options, the population within Citrus Heights is too large to be one trustee area alone. So while we have one trustee area that consists solely of Citrus Heights, there's, Citrus Heights fills up that bucket and then there's a little bit leftover for some other trustee areas to pick up. And so that's the reasoning there. If we were to put all of Citrus Heights just in one trustee area, we'd be out of compliance with the equal population rule that we're required to follow. - [Mr. Hernandez] Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the clarification. - Sure. - Ms. Costa. Ms. Costa, do you mind turning your mic on. Thank you. - (faintly speaking) was the question I had. I really want to thank you for the wide variety of options and it provided an entire day of time analyzing all of them, that I discovered by the number of phone calls and emails that I had received, that the community was doing the same thing and had strong feelings in all sorts of different directions. So you have really provided food for thought and conversation. I really liked the fact that the city of Citrus Heights and Arden Arcade have trustee areas on the maps, that met one of my interests, another of my interests for the high schools, and you did a great job of making sure that the high schools were in each trustee area, at least one. As I looked at the maps, I've wrote all sorts of questions about why this not that. And then I'd turn the page, I got smarter as I went through this and looked at the data and I realized, oh, if you move this, then this is going to cause this area to change. And so it really helped my thinking as I started going through the information, but the city of Citrus Heights was the one that kept sticking in my mind, why couldn't they be together and I realized the numbers just didn't work out. So thank you very much for your work. - You're welcome. - Ms. Creason. - Thank you for the rundown. I'm gonna do a lot more listening than talking tonight. So, but I do have one question for now. Can you tell me what is the percentage in population concentration to get to the protected class amount, where you could call it a protected class in district? I know I'm not saying any of that right, but what is that magic number? - Sure, so if we wanted to, get back into this, if we were living in an ideal world where people congregate in a certain way, if we could get to 50% or greater of a particular protected class, then we would call that a majority minority district. - Got it. - That's not possible. So then the next criteria is, can we get to a plurality where the protected class represents the largest group but not a majority? And again, that's not possible. Then we even look at, can we create an area where you have a coalition district? It's what those are sometimes called, where you look at the protected classes, group them together, and are they large enough to create an area that would be either a majority or plurality? And again, that's not possible here either. So there's no majority minority, there's no plurality, there's no coalition district that is possible. - Thank you, - Dr. McKibbin. - Thank you for the diversity of these maps. They're interesting to look at and to try to figure out the numbers and so forth. (indistinct) I'm going to ask mostly procedural and nit-picky kinds of things. - Okay. - For example, the street that is East of Sunrise, that is Fair Oaks, right? I believe that's the only one of the large streets that's not marked. Am I correct in that? - Testing me here. - I'm looking at several. Let me talk about five-one and five-three, I think both. - Sure. Five, one, okay. - And seven, four, if you look at the street that is just east of Sunrise, I think that's Fair Oaks but it's the only one that's not marked. - Mr. Hernandez. Sorry to interrupt Dr. McKibbin. Mr. Hernandez, you might have your papers really close to your microphone. - [Mr. Hernandez] I'm so sorry, I apologize. - No apology necessary. I just wanted to flag. It's making it a little difficult to hear. Dr. McKibbin, please continue. Sorry to interrupt. - For example, on seven scenario four, that's the easiest one for me, because it's the one I have up. - Okay. I'm looking at that. - That one. - Maybe you can direct me a little bit to where you're looking at the map, sorry. - Seven, four, look at Sunrise and look directly to the East of Sunrise. There is a boundary between just to the West, there's a street just to the West of Bella Vista and I think that's Fair Oaks. - I'm pretty certain that it is too. - Okay. (indistinct) Okay. But that, because it's the border on several of the boundaries and I wanted to make sure, and I always making sure that that was, that I was correct in that. - We'll go ahead and make sure that gets labeled on a revised version. - Now on many, I think we talked about this the last time a bit. And am I correct, that in terms of the ways the boundaries are laid out, the voters on, for example, that are on any of these boundaries streets, like using seven-four, again, that are on Greenback Lane or are, there would be voters on one side of the street that would be in one trustee districts and voters on the other side of the street that would be in a different trustee district? - Yeah. If we're using the streets as the dividing line, then yes, you would have folks on different sides of the street in different voting areas. - Okay. And that's common through, but it is a standard practice that they would be divided by the street, and people literally living across the street from each other would be in a different trustee district. - Yes. And what we try to do is we tried to stick to the major roads where possible, where you don't have, you have a larger road, so it doesn't seem like they're necessarily neighbors per se. But yeah, we do have to find those dividing lines. And occasionally we have to go into neighborhoods and do that where people are right across the street. - One, a couple of other ones, let me go back to, I think I could either do it on seven, three or seven, one. And that is where the high school is in a district. If it is right at the boundary, let me do seven, one because that one I think is clearer. If I can get back to it. And use Casa Roble as the example on Oak Avenue. Is Casa Roble in trustee area seven or trustee area six, the way that is positioned there? - I believe it is on the North side of Oak Avenue. And I'm gonna-- - It is on the North side of Oak Avenue. So it would be on that, so it would be in trustee seven. - Yeah, I was phoning a friend on that one. - Okay. Okay. Thank you. - Thank you, Dr. McKibbin. And I think just in general, particularly as these, especially, just Fair Oaks in particular, it gets a little winding and sometimes in parts turns into Winding Way and then reverts back. So just, I think it would be helpful to have that noted throughout. I don't have a question so much as I want to ensure understanding. So my back of the napkin math indicates that while we, as you just explained, we couldn't mathematically, a majority minority district didn't shape out because of how the numbers in the different populations are, how they are. But it looks as if the closest we got was perhaps almost a 44% minority representation in scenario three of seven, just in general, were you able to kind of take a look and see which one had the most, I know we've been looking at polarities and you mentioned a couple of other groupings as well. - Yeah, the area consistently that has the highest concentration of protective classes, it wouldn't be the South of Marconi, West of Watt, area that you see in scenarios seven-one, seven-three and seven-four. That would be where that percentage, as you said, it's about 56% white. And so it's about 44% non-white in terms of citizen voting age population. And that's the highest in any of the scenarios that we've created. - And can you repeat just one more time, the distinction between the total population and the CVAP numbers here, you did at the outset, but I would appreciate just one explanation. Thank you. - Sure. Total population we're using the 2010 census data and we're dividing the district into five or seven areas of equal population based on the total population. That has to be our kind of north star as we divide into equal areas. Citizen voting age population is being utilized for Federal Voting Rights Act purposes, to ensure that we're not doing anything to inhibit members of protected classes from being able to influence outcome of elections. And we're not seeing in your district or areas of real high dense concentration of large groups of people that would be protected classes. It's easier to see in other districts that we've worked with where you see a large, very concentrated area of Latinos, citizen voting age population. And so we look at that CVAP number so we don't go right down the middle of that community and divide into two voting areas and dilute their voting strength. Again, we don't have that here. We have a very dispersed population within the whole community. So that's a little less easy to see in the numbers and even on the maps than when you see it so clearly in some areas. - Thank you for that additional context. And then to the extent that you can, can you just offer a little bit of information about the data being used, the census data, how detailed it does or does not get, and then to the best, I don't want to ask you to speculate, but any potential distinctions between of course, the 2010 data and the data that we still don't have from 2020. - Sure. So I, thank you for asking that question because it reminds me of something I should have said at the beginning, which is what we did, and my colleague who was here at the last meeting probably shared with you, the population estimates that we had from that third party data provider. So we're using the 2010 census data because that's what we're required to use to balance these areas until we get the 2020 census data. We received and utilized the population estimates from that third party provider, it's called GeoLytics. And what we did to try to minimize, hopefully, the amount of changes that would occur after the census, is we made sure that these areas are balanced both on 2010 data as well as on the 2020 population estimate data from that third party provider. So when you look at the maps that are online, you'll see there's four tables on the page of charts and you'll see total population, and then you'll see the GeoLytics population and you'll see the rough totals there and you'll see the population variance. And so we're within 10% on both of those population metrics. We have to go a little bit higher on one than the other in order to make that work. But that was one thing that we did to try to minimize the amount of changes that we might see once that new census data is released, which hopefully will be in mid to late August. - I appreciate your optimism. - Somebody told me today, nothing's gone wrong with the federal government in the last 18 months. So why would this go wrong? So that's just something to keep in mind. - I won't offer any other colorful comments, we'll just leave it at that. I'm going to do just one more quick check with my colleagues. Any other questions or comments for now? Mr. Hernandez, any? - [Mr. Hernandez] No, none, thank you. - Okay, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. At this time, we'll move to the public hearing. I declare the topic of the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas a public hearing and it is now open for public comment. We do have speaker cards for this item, and I'd like to remind the public that comments are limited to two minutes. The clock on the wall will count down the time. Give us just a moment to have it pulled up and I'm going to pull up our list as well. I believe first up, so in general, I will call our speaker and then indicate who will follow just so that next person can be prepared. So we have first in order of signups, we have Mr. Juan Yniguez followed by Amy Kassouni. Mr. Yniguez, please join us. - Good evening. I'm sure you're tired, and I'm tired. It's been a long haul in this, but I'm glad we're making progress. I did want to comment on a few statements made last board meeting because I think it helps us all collectively think about what some miss or what some misstatements might be. They're focusing on some of the comments made by board members and a few of the supporters who recruited by a board member at the July 1 special meetings. One statement that I would just like to focus on is the comment, which was correct, that research is inconclusive about whether a five member or seven board members is more effective. My reaction to that is very simple. If that's so then let's stop suggesting otherwise. Number two, the comment was made, if it's not broken, why fix it? Apparently for those commenters, very low academic performances in the district aren't enough to show how broken the district really is. A third misstatement is, seven member districts are dysfunctional. Dissent and disagreement are good for democracy. It's been my experience that this board likes to believe and think that group think is a good way to go. I firmly disagree. This notion that group think is a way to go is followed by some twisted logic that says that if you have five board members representing 330,000 community members, that makes more sense than seven members, each of whom would primarily be accountable to their own districts of approximately 50,000 residents. I just don't understand how the math works out if you stay with five, as opposed to going to seven, I also wanted to point out, well, we've got the support of various community groups, (indistinct) - [Ms. Villescaz] Thank you Mr. Yniguez - I'll send them in and then please do the right thing. Create seven districts. Thank you. - [Ms. Villescaz] Next up we have Amy Kassouni followed by Michele Wright. - Good evening board. I'm Amy Kassouni from the San Juan Community Action Network. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I support a move to seven board members. The San Juan Community Action Network is not alone in it's call for seven board members. The City Council of Citrus Heights unanimously passed a resolution in support. Additionally council member, Eric Guerra, LULAC, Latinos Unidos, San Juan Parent Association, the Benito Juarez Neighborhood Association and the San Juan Recall Group all support a move to seven. Further at the last meeting of this board, the only people who spoke in favor of five districts were either employees, relatives of employees or recently retired union reps whose testimony must be seen as flawed with clear financial bias. Interestingly, the best argument these individuals posed was concerned regarding reaching consensus. This logic too is flawed. As history shows us, one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln, held in his cabinet, a team of rivals recognizing that lively debate is the bedrock of a free and fair society. Finally, I realized this is, there is a push to get these maps finalized for legal purposes, but for the legal matter to being moot, the district must have approved maps that eliminated polarized voting. A few proposed maps have Encina and Rio represented by one board member. This scenario would not eliminate polarized voting because it's more than just race. Also legal concern, it's noteworthy that the maps we are looking at tonight must have been drawn before the pre hearing, at least one was printed at 5:00 AM the very next morning. This would be out of compliance with state voting rights law. Thank you. - [Ms. Villescaz] Thank you, Ms. Kassouni. Next we have Michele Wright followed by Michael Seaman. - Hi, good evening. My name is Michele Wright. I'm a former student, current resident, and hopefully a future parent in SJUSD. I'm here tonight to urge you to adopt a seven trustee map that creates most, if not all of the Citrus Height, Citrus Heights as one trustee area and West Arden Arcade with the inclusion of, reach into part of North Highlands as another trustee area. After research and review, seven trustee area, conceptual scenario four would be the best option with those fixes. For the last 30 years, these two areas have not been represented, have not had representation on the board and student outcomes are suffering because of it. They need strong representation to make changes needed for a quality education for all. And Dr. McKibbin, I'd like to address some comments you made during the last board meeting. You mentioned you spent a lot of time traveling through the district and visiting various schools across it, while I appreciate your efforts to educate yourself, in order to make good policy decisions I do have to say that it is still insufficient to address the needs of students in areas outside of the community that you reside. It is important to have representatives on the board who actually live in those communities and specifically, historically politically excluded communities because they have personal lived experience that can't be replaced through just educational alone. So additionally, having diverse voices will benefit everyone. It is through varying viewpoints and perspectives that we can find best practices and craft better policies. Thank you. - [Ms. Villescaz] Thank you. Next up we have Michael Seaman followed by Kevin Fernandez. - Thank you board members, I'm Michael Seaman, a resident of Arden Arcade since 1978. I applaud what you're trying to do. I know you're under time deadline and it's kind of difficult to get the, to use the 2010 census data when the 2020 is way more appropriate. For example, Arden Arcade had 92,000 people in 2010 and I'm thinking it's gonna be more like 108,000, maybe more than that in 2020. And that does not count the homeless people that live there. So anyway, I think the mistake that you've made, I like the seven districts better than the five, but the mistake that you've made is orient them around your high schools. What you should be doing is orienting them around the population and where the needs are and the place that's been ignored for so long is West Arden Arcade. So you should really start by saying, here are the existing jurisdictions that aren't gonna change, and that's the city of Sacramento boundary, and you've got some pieces of the city of Sacramento, and the city of Citrus Heights boundary. You've got all of the Citrus Heights, so, or almost all of Citrus Heights. So what you need to do is to take those two as givens and then your other given should be West Arden Arcade, environmental justice area because of their, the demographics are dreadful compared to the rest of your district. So you should be basing in population and taking into account where the cities, where's the environmental justice area and also where are the park districts, because the parks are your partners. We all know that that's where kids go after, when school's out, they go to the parks. So if you go in population alone, Arden Arcade should have two plus trustees and Citrus Height should have two. So I would really like to see you get away from your high school orientation. You're not a high school district, you're a unified school district. And I thank you very much. - [Ms. Villescaz] Thank you, Mr. Seaman. Next step we have Kevin Fernandez followed by Carolina Flores. - Hello and good evening. My name is Kevin Fernandez and I am a resident of Arden Arcade, and I am employing the district to adopt the seven trustee area configuration, specifically the conceptual scenario number four, and with the falling feedback actually. So we're trying to keep Citrus Heights together as much as possible, and also extend area one towards the Northern Highlands. I think these two areas have historically lacked representation on the school board, thus exasperating some of the educational equity gaps that we've seen, that has profound impact on student performance and outcomes. So if you could just please take these changes and also impose these changes onto those district maps, that'd be great. Thank you so much. - [Ms. Villescaz] Thank you. Next up we have Carolina Flores followed by Magali Kincaid. Ms. Flores, will you require the use of a translator tonight? Okay. - I'm presenting for Scott Rafferty, our attorney for the California Voting Rights Act claim that we have against you, San Juan Unified School District. It is a travesty to rush to beat the 2020 census data only four weeks away just to prevent SCOE from reviewing the real map. You are ignoring the need of public input. You won't even post more than 85 written comments, but we have posted everyone even the few defending five trustees on neighborhoodelections.com. Your draft maps prove that San Juan needs seven trustees to represent the areas that have not had residents serve on the board for many years. Seven trustees also provide greater diversity of viewpoint and life experience, which increases the board's capacity. We know that trustee areas promote equity for neighborhoods that need extra help. That's essential, when The Bee says that San Juan has some of the state's most segregated schools. And better accountability benefits all areas, as authentic representatives accountable to their neighbors, Folsom-Cordova's new area trustees had true authority to make difficult decisions. They now have all the students back in person learning at the earliest possible time. Scenario seven-four may be the basis for an acceptable maps and once you have the 2020 data. Area one still needs to honor President Villescaz concerns about income inequality within the Arden Arcade. On each of the 14 socioeconomic measures we mapped for you last March, six of the seven block groups in Sierra Oaks and Sierra Oaks Vista are very different from the rest of area one, the Sheriff's map of high need neighborhoods also stops at Northrup. These high turnout high-income blocks should be removed. According to your demographer, area one has grown since the last census at four times the rate of other areas, but he disregarded your instructions and did not build in any growth. Traditional criteria also uses a 10% population leeway to make the remedial area smaller and more distinct. But this was not even on your list of options. If area one needs any more population you should add from North of Marconi. You can get the same thing about Citrus Heights. - [Ms. Villescaz] Sorry, Ms. Flores. Thank you. Next up we have Magali Kincaid. - Hello. My name is Magali Kincaid and I'm a mother of three children in the school district. I appreciate the districts drawing maps, seven trustee area maps. Appreciate that. And I also appreciate the recent efforts that you're making to notify community about the transition to trustee areas and gather input. I received your phone call, your emails and your postcard, but I'm incredibly concerned that the district believes one way communication is community engagement. The district holds the responsibility for communicating with the utmost transparency to the community, their considerations and reasons for their decisions about their programs, spending and this trustee process. How was, and will the specific community feedback be used in drafting and updating these maps? What will each board member consider in making a decision about what map to support and why? Why have you not reinstated Zoom as an option? Why are the community meetings not being recorded and shared openly? What did the district consider in choosing the various schools for the community meetings? Parents and community members want to have these conversations with you and make decisions that affect our children in partnership. But this cannot happen unless the district is willing to lower the walls and communicate honestly and openly and build trust. The district has made many decisions without accountability. And the consequences of these decisions are being felt by many low income, Black, Brown, native, and English language learners on how students across the district, including those in West Arden Arcade and Citrus Heights. This is by design, not coincidence. One way to begin to make change is to expand the board to adopt a trustee map with seven trustees and make sure that scenario four is adopted with two changes. Expand trustee area one towards North Highlands and ensure that Citrus Heights gets the voice that they need and want. - [Ms. Villescaz] Thank you, Ms. Kincaid. Next up we have David Hawkins and he is our last one listed, so if others wish to speak at this time, please visit our speaker card area in the back. - Thank you board, David Hawkins from Fair Oaks. I just read the numbers because Mr. Hernandez chart, I thought was very helpful last week, I wish we had a copy of it, but I, I ran the percentages for the population for both based on the 2010 census as well as the projected numbers from the data collection group. And it's interesting to me that a five member board versus a seven member board, each of the board members on a five member board would represent 40% more people than a seven member board. So roughly a five member board, you're going to represent close to 65,000 members, whereas a seven member it's roughly 45, 46,000. And the numbers are comparable, it's 40% both ways, whether you do it on the projected numbers based on the current data or on the 2010 census. And it just seems very dramatic to me, a 40% differential between having a five or seven member board and just wanted to pass it on. Thank you. - [Ms. Villescaz] Thank you. That was the final speaker card for visitor comments. So at this time, we're going to go to written comments. I do believe we have some written comments. Ms. Rai, will you please begin by reading the written comments. - [Ms. Rai] Good evening, President Villescaz. Our first comment is from Lisa Pelletier, who writes, I urge the board members to vote for a map that includes seven trustees, increasing the number of SJUSD board members from five to seven. I prefer the map titled seven trustee areas, conceptual scenario three, but I would accept any of the seven trustee maps. Our next comment is from Hilary Auer who writes, I would like to urge the board members to please vote for a map that includes seven trustees, which will increase the number of the SJUSD board members from five to seven. I prefer the map titled seven trustee areas, conceptual scenario three, but I would also accept any of the seven trustee maps. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, attention to this matter. Our next comment from comes from Jessica Herron. I want the board members to vote for a map that includes seven trustees. This would increase the board members from five to seven. I would prefer for, I would prefer the seven trustee area, conceptual scenario three, however, any of the seven trustee maps will do. Our next comment is from anonymous. There is no name. I would like a variety of representation, but I am quite concerned about the push of rich white parents to monopolize the process. How likely is it to truly get more representation on the school board? What I see happening is parents of means and privilege trying to take over the board and enact what they think is right for the kids, but not for all kids. What is right for their kids but not all kids. All the maps have areas of high-income neighborhoods, these are more likely places to gain representation. So what's the point. Aren't we just wasting a bunch of money to add two more board members, but not gain broader or more diverse representation? I wish all these helpful white parents would take a seat and actually listen to diverse voices. And please can Tom Nelson just stop harassing every parent group, student group and community group. Our next comment comes from Kevin Pelletier. I strongly support following law, requiring seven trustees for a district of this size. Furthermore, the law should be followed where the trustees reside in the districts they represent. These laws were implemented for a reason. Anything less is rogue corruption. I'm entering my actual address where I live, unlike Paula Villescaz's false statement of residency. Our next comment comes from Debra Fares. I would like Citrus Heights to be represented on the board. Next we have Sarah Kemp, who writes, we'd like the board to vote for a map that includes seven board members, increasing the board by two members. Our next comment is from Angelina Woodberry, the seven trustee areas, concepts scenario one, is the only map proposed that takes into consideration the social and economic diversity of San Juan Unified. Oftentimes the far West end of the district seems to be forgotten about and not adequately represented. This map allows them area that serves Encina, Greer, Howe Avenue and Edison to have a voice on the board, that is long overdue. The issues impacting this area are not the same as the ones impacting their neighbors on the other side of Watt Avenue. I urge the board to adopt this map as an official trustee boundary area. Our next comment is from Ashley Doyle, who writes, I urge the board members to vote for a map which included seven trustees increasing the number of SJUSD board members from five to seven. I prefer the map titled seven trustee areas, conceptual scenario three, but I would accept any of the seven trustee maps. Next we have James Doyle, who writes, I urge the board members to vote for a map that includes seven trustees, increasing the number of SJUSD board members from five to seven. I prefer the map titled seven trustee areas, conceptual scenario three but I would accept any of the seven trustee maps. Next, we have Renee Rich. I urge the board, I urge the board to vote for a map that includes seven trustees, increasing the board members from five to seven. I believe in order to have a truly diverse board every area needs a voice on the board. Next we have Raquel Leuze. I urge the board members to vote for a map that includes seven trustees increasing the number of SJUSD board members from five to seven. I prefer the map titled seven trustee areas, conceptual area three, but I would accept any of the seven trustees maps. Next we have Amber Busby, who writes, I'm happy that the district is moving forward with the implementation of by trustee elections and area maps that are more equitable across communities within San Juan. I wholeheartedly support the map for scenario three, which would not displace Zima Creason an advocate for true equity in San Juan, from representation if reelected under the new district lines. Next, we have a comment from Caryl Myers, who writes, regardless the issue, regarding the issue of revising board member elections, I definitely support changing how a school board member is elected, electing board members by the area where they reside is a smart move. While board members currently represent the entire district, they're not always aware of regional issues and opinions and feelings. SJUSD is a large diverse district, so it's leaders need to represent and understand the needs and concerns of the various areas. Next, we have Christine Bailey, who writes, I'm a member of the community in the San Juan School District. I urge you to support the change of having representatives for neighborhood. I ask that you adopt maps of seven representatives and keep as many as you can to Citrus Heights as a neighborhood with their own representative and to include North Highlands and the Western Arden Arcade map with their own representative. In the past 30 years, these neighbors have not been represented on the school board and students, and students and student results suffer. They need strong representatives to make the changes necessary for them to receive quality education. Thank you. Next, we have Laura Kim, who writes, I urge the board members to vote for a ma
2361 D 07/27/2021 San Juan Unified School District Board of Education 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California 95608 Board of Education Minutes July 13, 2021 Special Meeting Board of Education 5:30 p.m. Open Session/Call to Order/Announcement of Closed Session Topics (A) The July 13 special meeting was called to order by the president, Paula Villescaz. The board meeting was held in person and also livestreamed on the district’s YouTube channel. Roll Call Present: Paula Villescaz, president Michael McKibbin, Ed.D., vice president Zima Creason, clerk Pam Costa, member Saul Hernandez, member (via teleconference) Visitor Comments: Closed Session (A-1) There were no closed session visitor comments. Closed Session (B) The meeting was then recessed with the board convening in closed session to conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) – two cases – Name of Case: Magali Kincaid, Benito Juarez Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Elections Now, Juan Yniguez, Carolina Flores, Damaris Canton v. San Juan Unified School District, Complaint for Violation of the California Voting Rights Act and in the Alternative, For Violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the California Constitution, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-00286475 and Name of Case: Carolina Flores, Neighborhood Elections Now, Petitioners, vs. San Juan Unified School District, Paula Villescaz, in her official capacity of Board President, Respondents, Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to the First Amendment, the California Constitution, California Public Records Act, and the Ralph M. Brown Act; and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2021-80003644-CU-WM-GDS. Reconvene Open Session/Pledge of Allegiance (C) At 6:30 p.m. the meeting was called back to order by the president Paula Villescaz. After the Pledge of Allegiance, Ms. Villescaz explained the two methods (in person or electronically) available to submit public comment for tonight’s meeting. Minutes Approved (D) It was moved by Dr. McKibbin, seconded by Ms. Creason, that the minutes of the July 1 special meeting be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [AYES: Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None]. Closed Session/Expulsion Actions (E-1) There were no closed session actions to report.
2362 Consent Calendar Approved (F-1) It was moved by Ms. Costa, seconded by Dr. McKibbin, that the consent calendar item F-1 be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [AYES: Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None]. Purchasing Report (F-1) General contract and other – approved as submitted. California Voting Rights Act Public Hearing: Map Review Public Hearing No. 1 (H-1) General Counsel Linda Simlick presented the item and introduced demographer Larry Ferchaw from Cooperative Strategies who gave a presentation about the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas. Mr. Ferchaw provided detailed information on each of the eight map options (four maps for the five trustee area scenarios and four maps for the seven trustee area scenarios), he reviewed the demographics for each scenario and he discussed the timeline and next steps. After the presentation, Ms. Villescaz invited board members to speak. Mr. Hernandez inquired about all of Citrus Heights being its own area under the five trustee area scenarios, which Mr. Ferchaw explained that the population would be too large and therefore out of compliance with the equal population rule. Ms. Costa shared that she was pleased with the wide variety of options, that Citrus Heights and Arden-Arcade each have a trustee area and that at least one high school is in each trustee area. Ms. Creason inquired about protected classes, which Mr. Ferchaw answered. Dr. McKibbin posed questions about several of the map scenarios, which Mr. Ferchaw clarified. Ms. Villescaz asked questions related to majority/minority representation, CVAP versus population numbers and census data, which Mr. Ferchaw addressed. After board comment, Ms. Villescaz declared the topic of the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas a public hearing and invited the public to speak. Public Comments: [in person] Juan Yniguez commented on statements that board members and supporters made at the last board meeting. Amy Kassouni expressed support for seven board members, noting that other groups also support the change. Michelle Wright stated she supports a seven-member map with Citrus Heights and Arden-Arcade as their own areas. Michael Seaman shared that he prefers seven board members with representation for Citrus Heights and West Arden-Arcade. Kevin Fernandez stated he supports the map titled: scenario 4 – seven trustee areas. Carolina Flores read a prepared statement on behalf of Scott Rafferty. Magali Kincaid expressed support for the map titled: scenario 4 – seven trustee areas. David Hawkins shared data regarding the number of registered voters. [via electronic comment form, and read aloud by Communication Director Raj Rai] Lisa Pelletier expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Hilary Auer expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Jessica Herron expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Anonymous wrote about having more representation on the board. Kevin Pelletier supports having a seven-member board. Debra Phares would like Citrus Heights represented on the board. Sarah Kemp supports having a seven-member board. Angelina Woodberry expressed support for the map titled: scenario 1 – seven trustee areas.
2363 Ashley Doyle expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. James Doyle expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Renee Reich supports having a seven-member board. Raquel Leuze expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Amber Busby expressed support for the scenario 3 map. Caryl Myers supports by-district elections. Christine Bailey supports having a seven-member board. Laura Kim expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Chelsea McKiernan supports having a seven-member board. Yanna Ren expressed support for the map titled: scenario 1 – seven trustee areas. Kelly Connor expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Lisa Howard supports by-district elections. Angela Snell supports having a seven-member board. Erica Kantar expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. Taja Ferrarini supports having a seven-member board. Mark Bennett expressed support for the map titled: scenario 3 – seven trustee areas. William Becker offered suggestions to fix the map titled: scenario 4 – seven trustee areas. Padres Organized Community wrote about underrepresentation. Josie Morales offered suggestions to fix the map titled: scenario 4 – seven trustee areas. There being no further comments from the public, Ms. Villescaz declared the public hearing closed and invited board members to speak. Board members thanked the community for its input, encouraged attendance at the upcoming community input meetings and reviewed next steps in the process. Adjournment (I) At 7:54 p.m., there being no further business, the special meeting was adjourned. _____________________________ ___________________________________ Paula Villescaz, President Kent Kern, Executive Secretary Approved: _________ :sc 07/27/2021
1 San Juan Unified School District Special Meeting of the Board of Education 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California 95608 Paula Villescaz, President Michael McKibbin, Ed.D., Vice President Zima Creason, Clerk Pam Costa, Member Saul Hernandez, Member CALL & NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE is hereby given that a special meeting of the Board of Education of the San Juan Unified School District is hereby called by the board president, and will be held at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, July 13, 2021. Board of Education meetings are now being held in person in the board room located at 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California. Public attendance is welcome and encouraged. Alternatively, you can view the board meeting on YouTube from a computer, mobile device or tablet. The YouTube link can be found on the district's YouTube channel or by visiting https://www.sanjuan.edu/boardmeeting where the link will be posted approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. The district has taken the following steps to assist the public in offering public comment: 1. In Person Public Comment. Public comment may be offered in person during the board meeting at the district office located at 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California. Board Bylaw 9323 limits visitor comments to two (2) minutes per speaker, with no more than 30 minutes per single topic. Time will be extended for any speaker who uses an interpreter. 2. Online Submission of Public Comment. Written public comment may be submitted using the public comment form located on the district website at https://www.sanjuan.edu/boardmeeting. Comments received by 5:00 p.m., on July 13, 2021, will be provided to the members of the board prior to the meeting and may be read on the record during this meeting. For this special meeting, all written comments received through the public comment form will be read on the record during the meeting subject to the time limits established in Board Bylaw 9323. During this special meeting, public comment will only be permitted on item(s) described in this agenda prior to consideration of the item. Public comments regarding other items that are not on the agenda should be offered during the next regular board meeting scheduled for August 10, 2021. All public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes or approximately 1,500 characters. Any portion of a comment extending past two (2) minutes or the approximate 1,500- character limit may not be read aloud due to time restrictions. All written comments that are not read into the record will be provided to the board members for review, provided that such comments are received prior to the end of the meeting. Please be aware that written public comments, including your name, may become public information. The business to be considered at this board meeting is on the following agenda: Board of Education Agenda July 13, 2021 Special Meeting Board of Education 5:30 p.m. A. OPEN SESSION/CALL TO ORDER/ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPICS – 5:30 p.m. 1. Visitor Comments (for closed session agenda items only) Board Bylaw 9323 limits visitor comments to two (2) minutes per speaker, with no more than 30 minutes per single topic. Time will be extended for any speaker who uses an interpreter. B. CLOSED SESSION – 5:30 p.m. 1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1). a. Name of Case: Magali Kincaid, Benito Juarez Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Elections Now, Juan Yniguez, Carolina Flores, Damaris Canton v. San Juan Unified School District, Complaint for Violation of the California Voting Rights Act and in the Alternative, For Violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the California Constitution, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-00286475.
2 b. Name of Case: Carolina Flores, Neighborhood Elections Now, Petitioners, vs. San Juan Unified School District, Paula Villescaz, in her official capacity of Board President, Respondents, Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to the First Amendment, the California Constitution, California Public Records Act, and the Ralph M. Brown Act; and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2021- 80003644-CU-WM-GDS. C. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 6:30 p.m. D. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – July 1, 2021, special meeting, pages 2357-2360. E. ANNOUNCEMENTS – 6:35 p.m. 1. Closed Session/Expulsion Actions (Government Code section 54957.1) F. CONSENT CALENDAR – F-1 – 6:40 p.m. Action: The administration recommends that the consent calendar, item F-1, regarding regular business items, be approved. Any item may be removed for further discussion and separate action following consideration of remaining agenda items. 1. *Purchasing Report – general contract and other. *Material provided. G. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued, if necessary) Discussion and action on the items removed from the consent calendar. H. BUSINESS ITEM 1. California Voting Rights Act Public Hearing: Map Review Public Hearing No. 1 – 6:45 p.m. (Simlick) Material provided. (Public Hearings: 03/31/2020, 07/01/2021) The district’s demographer will be making a presentation. Public Hearing/Discussion: The superintendent is recommending that the board hold a public hearing regarding the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas. B. CLOSED SESSION (continued, if necessary) Announcement of topics/announcement of actions. I. ADJOURNMENT – 8:30 p.m. The Board of Education welcomes and encourages the public’s participation at the board meetings and has devoted time during the meeting for that purpose. You may comment on items included on this agenda; however, we ask that you limit your comments to two (2) minutes, so that as many people as possible may be heard (Education Code section 35145.5, Government Code section 54954.3). When an item indicates “material provided,” the additional information is available prior to the meeting in the Information and Communication Office, 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, (916) 979-8281, or on the district website at www.sanjuan.edu/board. A person with a disability may contact the Board of Education office at (916) 971-7111, or email stephanie.cunningham@sanjuan.edu at least 48 hours before the scheduled board meeting to request receipt of an agenda and other distributed writings in an appropriate alternative format, or to request disability-related modifications or accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public board meeting. Translation and interpretation services will be made available upon request with advance notice. If you wish to utilize these services, please notify the Board of Education office at (916) 971-7111, or email stephanie.cunningham@sanjuan.edu at least 24 hours before the scheduled board meeting to allow for the scheduling of appropriate translation staff and other resources. NOTE: The times indicated are approximate. Mission Statement Valuing diversity and excellence, the San Juan Unified School District’s mission is to educate and inspire each student to succeed and responsibly contribute to a radically evolving world by providing innovative, rigorous, student-focused instruction and programs in a safe, caring and collaborative learning community.
Showing the first 24,000 of 41,032 characters. The full document is at the source.
1 San Juan Unified School District Special Meeting of the Board of Education 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California 95608 Paula Villescaz, President Michael McKibbin, Ed.D., Vice President Zima Creason, Clerk Pam Costa, Member Saul Hernandez, Member CALL & NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE is hereby given that a special meeting of the Board of Education of the San Juan Unified School District is hereby called by the board president, and will be held at 5:30 p.m., on Tuesday, July 13, 2021. Board of Education meetings are now being held in person in the board room located at 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California. Public attendance is welcome and encouraged. Alternatively, you can view the board meeting on YouTube from a computer, mobile device or tablet. The YouTube link can be found on the district's YouTube channel or by visiting https://www.sanjuan.edu/boardmeeting where the link will be posted approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. The district has taken the following steps to assist the public in offering public comment: 1. In Person Public Comment. Public comment may be offered in person during the board meeting at the district office located at 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California. Board Bylaw 9323 limits visitor comments to two (2) minutes per speaker, with no more than 30 minutes per single topic. Time will be extended for any speaker who uses an interpreter. 2. Online Submission of Public Comment. Written public comment may be submitted using the public comment form located on the district website at https://www.sanjuan.edu/boardmeeting. Comments received by 5:00 p.m., on July 13, 2021, will be provided to the members of the board prior to the meeting and may be read on the record during this meeting. For this special meeting, all written comments received through the public comment form will be read on the record during the meeting subject to the time limits established in Board Bylaw 9323. During this special meeting, public comment will only be permitted on item(s) described in this agenda prior to consideration of the item. Public comments regarding other items that are not on the agenda should be offered during the next regular board meeting scheduled for August 10, 2021. All public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes or approximately 1,500 characters. Any portion of a comment extending past two (2) minutes or the approximate 1,500- character limit may not be read aloud due to time restrictions. All written comments that are not read into the record will be provided to the board members for review, provided that such comments are received prior to the end of the meeting. Please be aware that written public comments, including your name, may become public information. The business to be considered at this board meeting is on the following agenda: Board of Education Agenda July 13, 2021 Special Meeting Board of Education 5:30 p.m. A. OPEN SESSION/CALL TO ORDER/ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPICS – 5:30 p.m. 1. Visitor Comments (for closed session agenda items only) Board Bylaw 9323 limits visitor comments to two (2) minutes per speaker, with no more than 30 minutes per single topic. Time will be extended for any speaker who uses an interpreter. B. CLOSED SESSION – 5:30 p.m. 1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1). a. Name of Case: Magali Kincaid, Benito Juarez Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Elections Now, Juan Yniguez, Carolina Flores, Damaris Canton v. San Juan Unified School District, Complaint for Violation of the California Voting Rights Act and in the Alternative, For Violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the California Constitution, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-00286475.
2 b. Name of Case: Carolina Flores, Neighborhood Elections Now, Petitioners, vs. San Juan Unified School District, Paula Villescaz, in her official capacity of Board President, Respondents, Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to the First Amendment, the California Constitution, California Public Records Act, and the Ralph M. Brown Act; and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2021- 80003644-CU-WM-GDS. C. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 6:30 p.m. D. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – July 1, 2021, special meeting, pages 2357-2360. E. ANNOUNCEMENTS – 6:35 p.m. 1. Closed Session/Expulsion Actions (Government Code section 54957.1) F. CONSENT CALENDAR – F-1 – 6:40 p.m. Action: The administration recommends that the consent calendar, item F-1, regarding regular business items, be approved. Any item may be removed for further discussion and separate action following consideration of remaining agenda items. 1. *Purchasing Report – general contract and other. *Material provided. G. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued, if necessary) Discussion and action on the items removed from the consent calendar. H. BUSINESS ITEM 1. California Voting Rights Act Public Hearing: Map Review Public Hearing No. 1 – 6:45 p.m. (Simlick) Material provided. (Public Hearings: 03/31/2020, 07/01/2021) The district’s demographer will be making a presentation. Public Hearing/Discussion: The superintendent is recommending that the board hold a public hearing regarding the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas. B. CLOSED SESSION (continued, if necessary) Announcement of topics/announcement of actions. I. ADJOURNMENT – 8:30 p.m. The Board of Education welcomes and encourages the public’s participation at the board meetings and has devoted time during the meeting for that purpose. You may comment on items included on this agenda; however, we ask that you limit your comments to two (2) minutes, so that as many people as possible may be heard (Education Code section 35145.5, Government Code section 54954.3). When an item indicates “material provided,” the additional information is available prior to the meeting in the Information and Communication Office, 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, (916) 979-8281, or on the district website at www.sanjuan.edu/board. A person with a disability may contact the Board of Education office at (916) 971-7111, or email stephanie.cunningham@sanjuan.edu at least 48 hours before the scheduled board meeting to request receipt of an agenda and other distributed writings in an appropriate alternative format, or to request disability-related modifications or accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public board meeting. Translation and interpretation services will be made available upon request with advance notice. If you wish to utilize these services, please notify the Board of Education office at (916) 971-7111, or email stephanie.cunningham@sanjuan.edu at least 24 hours before the scheduled board meeting to allow for the scheduling of appropriate translation staff and other resources. NOTE: The times indicated are approximate. Mission Statement Valuing diversity and excellence, the San Juan Unified School District’s mission is to educate and inspire each student to succeed and responsibly contribute to a radically evolving world by providing innovative, rigorous, student-focused instruction and programs in a safe, caring and collaborative learning community.
2357 D 07/13/2021 San Juan Unified School District Board of Education 3738 Walnut Avenue, Carmichael, California 95608 Board of Education Minutes July 1, 2021 Special Meeting Board of Education 6:30 p.m. Open Session/Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance (A) The July 1 special meeting was called to order by the president, Paula Villescaz. The board meeting was held in person and also livestreamed on the district’s YouTube channel. Roll Call Present: Paula Villescaz, president Michael McKibbin, Ed.D., vice president Zima Creason, clerk Pam Costa, member Saul Hernandez, member Minutes Approved (B) It was moved by Ms. Creason, seconded by Dr. McKibbin, that the minutes of the June 22 regular meeting be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez]. California Voting Rights Act Public Hearing No. 2: Potential Composition of By-Trustee Areas Pursuant to Elections Code section 10010 subdivision (a)(1) and other applicable provisions of the law, Prior to Drawing of Maps and Resolution No. 3059 (C-1) General Counsel Linda Simlick presented the item and introduced Domenic Spinelli, an attorney from Spinelli, Donald and Nott law firm, who explained the reasoning behind the 41-day condensed timeline to complete the transition to by-trustee areas. Ms. Simlick then introduced demographer Justin Rich from Cooperative Strategies who gave a presentation about the map drawing process, which included information about the resolution outlining the criteria to guide the establishment of trustee areas. Mr. Rich noted that 2010 census data will be used to draw the draft maps, and then once the 2020 census data is available the final map may undergo minor adjustments to reflect the new data. After the presentation, Ms. Villescaz invited board members to speak. Mr. Hernandez made comments and shared data regarding the ten largest school districts in the state. Ms. Costa stated she believes each trustee area should have a minimum of one high school and she encouraged participation in the upcoming community input meetings. Ms. Creason asked clarifying questions about the process for the draft maps as well as the final map, which Mr. Rich answered, and she stated she supports the idea of at least one high school in each trustee area. Dr. McKibbin posed clarifying questions regarding gerrymandering and communities of interest, and he expressed support for using the school feeder system as criteria. Ms. Villescaz reiterated the timeline, explaining that draft maps have not been published yet, and she offered details about additional suggested criteria. After board comment, Ms. Villescaz declared the topic of the potential composition of by-trustee areas pursuant to elections code section 10010 subdivision (a)(1) and other applicable provisions of the law prior to the drawing of maps a public hearing and invited the public to speak. Public Comments: [in person] Tina Gonzalez Casanova said she supports staying with a five-member board.
2358 Victoria Castenada expressed support for a seven-member board. Ben Avey, speaking on behalf of the San Juan Parents Association, shared data that supports seven districts. Marti Velasco said she supports a five-member board since it is more stable. Juan Yniguez offered support for a seven-member board with increased representation in Citrus Heights and West Arden- Arcade. Kathy Morris expressed support for a seven-member board with representation from Citrus Heights. Ray Riehle expressed support for a seven-member board and encouraged board members to keep future boards in mind as this process unfolds. Amy Kassouni said she supports developing a seven-member map, which would allow for greater connectedness to schools and improved student outcomes. Magali Kincaid said West Arden-Arcade and Citrus Heights need representation, and she expressed support for seven trustees. Tim Kassouni stated he endorses expansion to a seven-member board. Maria Grijalva requested to reinstate Zoom for increased audience participation. Earl Lagomarsino expressed support for a seven-member board, which would help the board relate to neighborhoods. Aaron Miner made comments related to increasing the board to seven members for increased representation. Carolina Flores, who first gave comments in Spanish, then made comments in English about The Ralph M. Brown Act. Alejandro Cabrera, speaking on behalf of Councilmember Eric Guerra, expressed support for a seven-member board. Ben Chaffin expressed support for a seven-member board in order to improve student outcomes. Mario Galvan provided information to the public about how to get involved in the process. DeAnn Deckwa encouraged looking at communities prior to the drawing of maps. Chief of Staff Trent Allen notified Ms. Villescaz that the 30-minute time limit for public comment had been reached. It was moved by Ms. Creason, seconded by Ms. Costa, to extend time in order to hear the remainder of public comments. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez]. Murad Sarama expressed support for by-district elections and seven-member board to allow for better engagement and representation. Damaris Canton shared that the seven-member board concept is led by parents and it would allow for better representation and smaller areas of focus on the west end. Lisa Pelletier expressed concerns with distance learning, stating she supports local control and parent representation. Faith Attaguile made comments related to census data. Scott Rafferty made comments about the democratic process, data and increasing the board to seven members. Bill Simmons spoke in support of keeping a five-member board. David Hawkins expressed support for increasing the board to seven members, which would allow for inclusiveness.
2359 Michele Wright stated she supports a seven-member board, increased representation and greater inclusiveness. Michael Nishimura stated he was happy about the move to by-trustee area elections and it would be fairer and more equitable by going to a seven-member board. Herman Barahona expressed disappointment with the suspension rates of black and brown students and the lack of an engineering program at Encina, and he expressed support for a seven-district board. Theresa Amador made comments related to a seven-trustee map, student outcomes and school performance. Jocelyn Millan expressed support for a five-member board. [via electronic comment form, and read aloud by Chief of Staff Trent Allen] Elizabeth Wroten expressed support for redrawing the district map to include seven neighborhoods instead of five. Nina Mancina posed questions related to the effectiveness of increasing the size of the board. Michael Seaman expressed a preference for seven districts and offered input regarding additional criteria. Alan Lovett supports having more teaching staff rather than more board members. Tommee Nelson expressed support for moving to trustee areas but disapproval of attorneys trying to profit off the process. John Carnezas wrote about the challenges of attending in-person meetings and supports the increase to seven trustees. Anonymous wrote that identification should not be required on the comment form and expressed support for seven trustees. There being no further comments from the public, Ms. Villescaz declared the public hearing closed and invited board members to speak. Mr. Hernandez stated he appreciated all the comments and he looks forward to hearing everyone’s point of view before making a final decision. Ms. Costa said that she appreciates all the comments and listeners, and she is interested in hearing input at the upcoming community meetings from the widest number of people as possible. Ms. Creason addressed some of the public comments, reiterating that decisions regarding maps have not yet been made and more public hearings are scheduled, and she also made comments and posed questions related to open enrollment and the mapping process. Dr. McKibbin thanked the public for all the comments, and he noted the importance of hearing from the 80 percent of non-student households in the district, the need to continue representing all schools in the district, and he shared some of his positive experiences related to interacting with five-member boards. Ms. Villescaz reiterated this is a multi-step process and she encouraged widespread advertisement of the process and upcoming community input dates. Ms. Villescaz then led the board through a discussion on each item on the list of criteria. Board members made comments related to boundaries, communities of interest, the use of non-census data and incumbency. Board discussion resulted in: amending item 7 to include “… and safety considerations”; removing item 8 from the criteria – “The boundaries of the trustee areas may consider avoiding pairing two or more incumbents in a single trustee-area, to the extent legally allowable.”; and adding item 11 to the criteria – “The boundaries of the trustee area shall include at least one high school or more”. It was moved by Ms. Costa, seconded by Dr. McKibbin, to adopt Resolution No. 3059, clarifying the criteria, as amended, that the demographer will consider when preparing draft maps. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez]. Tentative Agreement: San Juan Professional Educators Coalition (C-2) Superintendent Kern presented the item and stated that the one-time, off-schedule payment will not increase employees’ base compensation. There being no public comments, it was moved by Dr. McKibbin, seconded by Mr. Hernandez, that the tentative agreement between the San Juan Professional Educators Coalition (SJPEC) and San Juan Unified School District (SJUSD) be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez]. Tentative Agreement: Teamsters Union Local No. 150 (C-3) Superintendent Kern presented the item and stated that the one-time, off-schedule payment will not increase employees’ base compensation. There being no public comments, it was moved by Ms. Creason, seconded by Mr. Hernandez, that the tentative agreement between the Teamsters Union Local No. 150 and San Juan Unified School District (SJUSD) be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez].
2360 Tentative Agreement: San Juan Supervisors Association (C-4) Superintendent Kern presented the item and stated that the one-time, off-schedule payment will not increase employees’ base compensation. There being no public comments, it was moved by Ms. Costa, seconded by Dr. McKibbin, that the tentative agreement between the San Juan Supervisors Association (SJSA) and San Juan Unified School District (SJUSD) be approved. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY [Villescaz, McKibbin, Creason, Costa, Hernandez]. Adjournment (D) At 9:13 p.m., there being no further business, the special meeting was adjourned. _____________________________ ___________________________________ Paula Villescaz, President Kent Kern, Executive Secretary Approved: _________ :sc
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION AGENDA ITEM: F-1 MEETING DATE: 07/13/2021 APPROVED: Kent Kern Inc Page # Purchase Orders & Service Agreements 1 Change Orders Construction & Public Works Bids Piggyback Contracts NA Zero Dollar Contract NA Bids/RFPs NA General Contract & Other ERRATA NA Purchasing Contracts Report The following reports are submitted for board approval/ratification: NA NA NA
Purchasing Contracts Board Report Construction and Public Works Bids and Contracts June 9, 2021 - June 28, 2021 General Contract Fund Date PO# Bid # Vendor Name Description Amount $ Responsibility 26 6/30/2021 TBD 20-111 CDW Government LLC Wireless Equipment upgrade to all of the district’s facilities, including all required equipment, configuration, installation and performance assessment. Contractor will configure and install in excess of 3,200 new wireless access points. Total project cost is $2,439,010.88. Federal funding (USAC) approved $1.454.512.51. District funds required $984,498.37. Project 392-9739-P1 984,498.37$ 216 - Facilities Other Contracts Fund Date PO# Bid # Vendor Name Description Amount $ Responsibility New Addendum to Master Agreements Fund Date PO# Bid # Vendor Name Description Amount $ Responsibility Upon evaluation of the bids/contracts staff has awarded the following in accordance with all legal guidelines. Facilities Business Department 6/30/20211
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Map Review Public Hearing No. 1 DEPARTMENT: Legal Services ACTION REQUESTED: The superintendent is recommending that the board hold a public hearing regarding the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas. RATIONALE/BACKGROUND: On March 10, 2020, the board adopted Resolution No. 2982, declaring its intent to transition from at-large to by- trustee area board elections, where each board member must reside within the designated trustee-area boundary, and is elected only by the voters in that trustee area. On March 31, 2020, the district’s demographer presented information on the process and potential criteria for drawing the trustee-area boundary maps. At the April 14, 2020, meeting, the superintendent pulled the presentation and the second of two statutorily required hearings to evaluate the Governor’s Executive Order N-48-20, signed April 9, 2020, and the effect it would have on the district’s transition process. At the April 28, 2020, meeting, the board adopted Resolution No. 2991, declaring an intent to temporarily postpone hearings related to the board’s transition to by-trustee area elections until such time as neither state nor local public health officials recommend or impose social distancing measures due to the COVID19 pandemic. On June 11, 2021, the Governor executed Executive Order N-08-21, which stated “The following provisions [which include Executive Order N-48-20] shall remain in place and shall have full force and effect through June 30, 2021, upon which time they will expire subject to individual conditions described in the enumerated paragraphs.” On July 1, the district’s demographer presented information on the process and potential criteria for drawing the trustee-area boundary maps. The board held the second of two statutorily required hearings to receive input from the community on the trustee-area map creation process and elections sequence, pursuant to Elections Code section 10010(a)(1), and passed Resolution No. 3059, Criteria for Developing Trustee-Area Boundaries. The district’s demographer will present drafts of proposed trustee-area boundary maps. Following the presentation, the board will hold a public hearing to receive input from the community on the proposed trustee- area maps. ATTACHMENT(S): A: PowerPoint Presentation PREVIOUS STAFF/BOARD ACTION: Superintendent’s Cabinet: 03/02/2020, 03/23/2020, 11/09/2020, 06/01/2021, 06/07/2021, 06/14/2021, 06/21/2021 Board of Education: 03/10/2020, 06/08/2021, 06/22/2021, 07/01/2021 FISCAL IMPACT: LCAP/STRATEGIC PLAN: Current Budget: $ N/A Goal: N/A Focus: N/A Additional Budget: $ N/A Action: N/A Funding Source: N/A (unrestricted base, supplemental, other restricted, etc.) Strategic Plan: N/A Current Year Only Ongoing PREPARED BY: Linda C. T. Simlick, General Counsel APPROVED BY: Kent Kern, Superintendent of Schools AGENDA ITEM: _____H-1__ MEETING DATE: 07/13/2021 CHECK ONE: For Discussion: For Action: Report: Workshop: Recognition: Emergency Action:
1 T R U S T E E A R E A S C E N A R I O S S A N J U A N U N I F I E D S C H O O L D I S T R I C T J U L Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 1 S a n J u a n U n i f i e d S c h o o l D i s t r i c t | Tr u s t e e A r e a S c e n a r i o s 1 T R U S T E E A R E A P R O C E S S D AT E A C T I V I T Y March 31, 2020 Board Meeting: First Pre-Map Public Hearing July 1, 2021 Board Meeting: Second Pre-Map Public Hearing July 2 – July 6, 2021 Prepare Initial Trustee Area Scenarios July 6, 2021 Initial Trustee Area Scenarios posted to School District’s Website July 13, 2021 Board Meeting: Public Hearing on Trustee Area Scenarios July 13 – July 20, 2021 Revise Scenarios as Necessary July 20, 2021 Updated Scenarios posted to School District’s Website July 27, 2021 Board Meeting: Public Hearing on Trustee Area Scenarios Board Selection of Trustee Area Map Board Consideration of Change in Election Method No later than August 10, 2021 County Committee on School District Organization Holds a Public Hearing and Considers Approval of Change in Election Method and Trustee Area Map September/October 2021 New Census Data Available December 2021 – Febru
Showing the first 24,000 of 73,115 characters. The full document is at the source.
- I call the meeting of the San Juan Unified School District Board of Education to order. The closed session items on tonight's agenda are, item one, Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision D, paragraph one in two cases. Magali Kincaid, Benito Juarez Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Elections Now, Juan Yniguez, Carolina Flores, Damaris Canton versus San Juan Unified School District complaint for violation of the California Voting Rights Act and in the alternative for violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the California Constitution, Sacramento Superior Court case number 34-2020-00286475. And Carolina Flores, Neighborhood Elections Now, petitioner's versus San Juan Unified School District, Paula Villescaz in her official capacity of Board President, respondents, verified petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the first amendment, the California Constitution, California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, Sacramento Superior Court number 34-2021-80003644-CU-WM-GDS. I'm going to check with staff to see if we have any speaker cards on this closed session agenda item. We do not. Do we have any written comments submitted on this item? We do not. We will now move into closed session and we will return to open session at 6:30. I call the meeting of the San Juan Unified School District Board of Education back to order. Board meetings are now being held in person in the boardroom at the district office and the public is welcome to attend. Thank you all who have joined us. Alternatively the meeting may also be viewed on the district's YouTube channel, where it is being live streamed. The meeting is being audio and video recorded, and the recording may capture sounds and images of those attending this meeting. The recording will be posted on the district website. At this moment I invite you to please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance. - [Attendees] I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all - Good evening and welcome. I'm Paula Villescaz and I am the Board President and to my right is Dr. Michael McKibbin, Board Vice President, to his right is Ms. Zima Creason, board clerk, to her right is Ms. Pam Costa, board member and board member Saul Hernandez has a family obligation and is joining us by telephone. Mr. Hernandez, can you confirm that you can hear us? - [Mr. Hernandez] I can, thank you very much. - Perfect, we hear you as well. To my left is Superintendent Kent Kern and to his left is Board Administrative Assistant Stephanie Cunningham. Before we begin, I'd like to remind the public that tonight is a special meeting of the Board of Education and public comment is only accepted regarding items that are listed on tonight's agenda. But we do appreciate your input and want to hear from you. If you wish to offer a general visitor comment regarding a topic that is not on tonight's agenda, you can offer a comment at a future regular board meeting, and our next regular board meeting is scheduled for August 10th. Now I'd like to review the two methods that are available to offer public comment for tonight's meeting. For those of you here in attendance, in person, I'd like, and would like to offer a public comment on items that are on the agenda, we ask that you please complete a speaker card that is over available by the door. I'll ask Mary to raise her hand, perfect. Thank you. And you will be called on at the appropriate time during the agenda. We ask that you please indicate on the speaker card at that time, if you need any translation services as well. The second option is to submit a public comment online using the comment form located on the district website at www.sanjuan.edu/boardmeeting. If you wish to submit a public comment on more than one agenda item, please submit a separate form for each item on which you are commenting. For this special meeting, all written comments received through the public comment form will be read on the record during the meeting subject to the time limits established in board bylaw 93-23. Comments may only be submitted on an agenda item up until the time the agenda item has been discussed. Please note that all public comments are subject to a two-minute limit or approximately 1500 characters. It is the board's interest to consider all comments. If you are using an interpreter or self translating your comment, we ask that translations be given as the comment is shared. Those who have indicated a need for translation when making their request to speak, maybe provided an additional two minutes to allow for translation of their original two-minute comment. With that, we are now at item D, approval of the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Is there a motion to approve the minutes for July 1st? - So moved. - It has been moved by Dr. McKibbin. Is there a second? - Second. - It's been seconded by Ms. Creason. We will be doing a roll call vote this evening. So Mr. Hernandez? We're all gonna take a vote on the approval of the minutes, Mr. Hernandez? - [Mr. Hernandez] Yes. - Ms. Costa? Ms. Creason? Dr. McKibbin? - Yes. - And I vote, aye. That was unanimous. We are at item E-1, our closed session expulsion actions, and there are no closed session actions to report. So with that, we are at item F, the consent calendar. I'm going to pause quickly to see, do we have any speaker cards or written comments on this item? - [Woman] No, we do not. Okay. Do any board members wish to remove any items from the consent calendar? Mr. Hernandez? - [Mr. Hernandez] No. - Great. Okay. With that, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? - [Ms. Costa] So moved. - It's been moved by Ms. Costa. Is there a second? - [Mr. McKibbin] Second. - Seconded by Dr. McKibbin. Again, we will do a roll call vote on the consent calendar and the motion is to approve the consent calendar. Mr. Hernandez? - [Mr. Hernandez] Yes. - Ms. Costa? Ms. Creason? Dr. McKibbin? - [Mr. McKibbin] Aye. - And I vote, aye. That was unanimous. We are now at item H-1, California Voting Rights Act, public hearing, Map Review public hearing number one, Ms. Simlick. - Thank you and good evening, President Villescaz, board members, Superintendent Kern, and Ms. Cunningham. This evening the superintendent is recommending that the board hold a public hearing regarding the proposed maps for potential composition of trustee areas. Prior to the public hearing, demographer Larry Ferchaw from Cooperative Strategies will present drafts of proposed trustee area boundary maps. Following his presentation and any comments or questions by the board to Mr. Ferchaw, the public hearing will be held for the board to receive input from the community on the proposed trustee area maps. As a board might recall, Mr. Ferchaw presented information to the board on March 31st, 2020 on the process and potential criteria for the drawing of the trustee area maps. I'd like to, again, introduce Mr. Ferchaw at this time. - Thank you members of the board, Superintendent Kern, Larry Ferchaw. Good not to be a little square on a screen this time around. It's been a little while. So the presentation we have, hopefully that's going to come up on the screen, is to walk through just all of the map options that have been posted to the district's website for the last week as required under the elections code. You'll note we have eight different map options, four of which have five trustee areas and four of which have seven trustee areas. So we have a variety of options to go through. We'll just bring that presentation up. Just a reminder on the timeline that we're working under. This is our first public hearing on the maps scenarios. After tonight's hearing, we'll have an opportunity, if there's any comments or suggestions for changes to make those changes, and, sorry. - It should be displayed momentarily. - Used to being on Zoom, not. All right, so there we go. Here's the timeline. So recall the public hearings that we've held on the maps prior to drawing them. The maps again, have been posted since last week on the 6th for members of the community to review, tonight's public hearing to introduce those maps and get feedback from the board and the community on potential changes. We'll revise those scenarios as necessary, come up with new maps as necessary. And those will get posted to the district's website by a week from today. And then we're scheduled for July 27th to hold another hearing on the maps. And that would be the board's opportunity to select a map and finalize its process of moving from at-large to by area method of election. You'll see, we also have noted that new census data is going to become available. We're using the 2010 census data still because that's all that's available, but sometime between now and October, we'll have updated data with which to adjust these maps prior to the 2022 election. So that's just the process again. Let's see. And we have the first set of scenarios are the five trustee area scenarios. You can go ahead and go to scenario one. There we go. Kind of walk you through the layout of the maps. And spend a little more time on the first one to explain it, and then we'll pick up the pace as we go through the remaining seven of them. So in all of the maps that are five areas, area one is yellow, two is green, three is blue, four is, three is red, four is blue and five is purple. So you'll see those color codes on the maps, as well as in the legend in the upper left-hand corner of the screen, that identifies the trustee area number. The board members residences are noted on these maps just for informational purposes. They were not considered in the drawing of the areas as the board had instructed. So these are just on there so we know where folks reside and help some of the sequencing aspects as well. So next to each board member's name is a notation of when that board members term is up. So we understand that process as well. We've noted high schools on the map. So you can see which facilities are in which of the trustee areas. And then in the lower right-hand corner, you see sequencing options because we have situations where we have board members, incumbent board members who are paired in one area. We have open areas that we have to cycle for election. And so there's different options of how we can do that. So you'll see, in some of these scenarios, there's two or three different sequencing options that are noted with a letter, so A, B or C is the most we have. And some, we have only one option for sequencing, and it just depends on how the board pairings work and where those occur. So in scenario one, we have two sequencing options, either areas one and five would be up for election in 2022 or areas four and five would be up for election in 2022. And that would be part of the board's decision on a map like this, if this were the map that the board would select. The board would pick a map and then also a sequencing option to go with that map for approval. As far as the areas served, you can see that in area one, we started off in the Arden-Arcade area and work our way up into North Highlands, area two being the other part of Arden Arcade and coming into Carmichael. Area three being the rest of North Highlands, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights, and a little bit of Carmichael leftover. Area four in Fair Oaks, Gold River, and some of Citrus Heights, and then area five being the remainder of Citrus Heights and an Orangevale. Note that all the major roads, where the most of the major roads, it would be virtually impossible to label all the streets on these type of maps. So if that's an interest, we can certainly produce larger scale maps that can get posted to the website that would list all the streets, that's just the general layout of this particular scenario. So this is scenario one. And then we can go to the next slide. This is the wall of numbers slide and I'll highlight what is important or what we'd like to focus on in these maps is, in this process, we're first looking for population balance so that the difference between the largest and smallest areas is within our 10% variance. And I won't spoil the surprise by telling you that all the maps we've produced are within that legal requirement of population balance. So you don't have to do the math for us there. The other thing that we're looking at, are there anything we can do to enhance the ability of members of protected classes as defined under the Federal Voting Rights Act, to be able to influence the outcome of elections. And conversely, we're not doing anything to inhibit members of protected classes from being able to influence the outcome of elections. So we look at the citizen voting age population, just helpfully abbreviated as a CVAP, to see what areas are we creating increased influence for members of protected classes. And so if we look at scenario one and we look at trustee area one, again, remember that's the yellow area on the Western side of the district, we see that our Hispanic, Latino population on citizen voting age population is about 17 and a half percent, which is about five percentage points larger than the district wide average. The African-American population in that trustee area is 12 and three quarters percent, which is about seven percentage points higher than the district average. And then the Asian population is at six and two thirds percent, which is about two percentage points higher than the district average. So we're seeing areas of increased influence for members of protected classes, what we're not seeing in this scenario or any of the maps that we've produced as a majority minority district. So we're not able to create an area where a majority of the citizen voting age population consists of protected classes, given the population of the district, the dispersion of the population, it's not possible to create an area where a majority of the residents would be of protected class, one in particular, or even grouped together. It's just the nature of the demographics of this district that we don't see a real high concentration area for any particular protected classes within the district. So you'll see varying degrees of increase throughout the remaining seven scenarios, but just wanted to lay that out at the beginning, that we aren't able to create a majority Latino district or a majority African-American district or a majority Asian district through this process. So go to the next one, which is scenario two. And I often flip back and forth to see what's the difference between them because they start blending into one. But you can recall back that one and two kind of went, kind of a diagonal East West between areas one and two and the Arden-Arcade, North Highlands area, in scenario two it's more of a north south divide that you can see there. So that's one of the differences there. So it's mostly Arden Arcade, the portion of the city of Sacramento that's within the district and some of Carmichael that are an area one. Area two, the Northern part of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands is in that particular area, and then portions of Carmichael as well. Area three would be the rest of Carmichael, the majority of Fair Oaks, Gold River, portions of Orangevale, and a little bit of Citrus Heights works its way into area three. Area four is how about half of Citrus Heights and Orangevale. And then scenario five is the remainder of Citrus Heights and Orangevale. You'll see, on this one, there's only one sequencing option that we've laid out based on where board members reside. There's only one an uninhabited area by a current board member. So there's only one sequencing option for this particular map. We can go to the next slide, which is the demographic information. We can see the Latino population on citizen voting age population in area one is a little bit lower, 14.92, still above the district average, but not quite as high as scenario one. And you can see the population for the African-American, 9%, again, not quite as high, we were at 12% in scenario one. And the Asian population a little bit higher than scenario one at 6.94%. So when you look at the difference between the two, the way scenario one area one, it just captures a little bit more of the African-American and Latino citizen voting age population, just the way that community is oriented in the way that area one is formed in scenario one, versus that North South divide that we see in scenario two. So, number three, again, we have that North South look to scenarios one and two. A little bit cleaner of a line between the two, less jagged as you go across there. So that's part of the difference that you see. So again, Southern half of Arden Arcade, and then some of the city of Sacramento and Carmichael are in area one. Area two would be the Northern half of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands, the rest of Carmichael or some of Carmichael. And then area three is mostly Carmichael, most of Carmichael and then portions of Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights as well. The portion of Citrus Heights South of Greenback Lane. Area four would be the majority of Fair Oaks, all of Gold River, Orangevale, and a little bit of Citrus Heights. And then area five is just Citrus Heights. So this one does a little bit more of a looking at communities and of cities and census designated places and keeping those together. It does create one area that's entirely Citrus Heights, obviously Citrus Heights is too large to be one trustee area. So it does still get divided but this does create area five as just a Citrus Heights trustee area, for example. And then all of the unincorporated communities on the Eastern side are all within one trustee area. So that's one of the features of this particular map. You can see, we have sequencing options A and B on this one with either one and four in 2022 or four and five in 2022 as the two options that we've outlined here based on where incumbents reside and what areas are open. And then the numbers on this one, area one again, would be the area to focus on for citizen voting age population, 15.41% Latino citizen voting age population. Again, that's a little bit higher than scenario two, not quite as high as scenario one. And then you can see the African-American population. It's actually a little bit larger in area two in this particular map, but still both above the district average between those two. And then the Asian population is at it's highest in area one at 7%. Number four. Scroll through my notes here. This is, area one, again, starting kind of, the geography of this gets pretty similar, right, we start in the West and move East. You can see that square shape of area one representing Arden Arcade and city of Sacramento that's within the district. Area two being the remainder of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands and portions of Carmichael as well as. And then area three would be the remainder of Carmichael and the majority of Fair Oaks and Gold River. Area four would be Fair Oaks, all of Orangevale and portions of Citrus Heights. And then area five would be Citrus Heights in that particular map. And we'll make one option on this one in terms of sequencing with areas four and five in 2022 and one, two and three in 2024. Numbers on that, 16.22% in area one for Latinos citizen voting age population, 9.6 and 6.98 for Asian and African American citizen voting age population. So higher than area, scenarios two and three, but still not quite as high as scenario one in terms of our Latinos citizen voting age, and African-American citizen voting age concentration in area one in the Western area. So that is the sprint through the first four options. And we can go to the next one. So this introduces the seven trustee areas scenario options, and we introduced two new colors to the mix as well. So one through five would remain the same color coding system and then, I'm terrible at identifying colors, we'll say area six is gold and area seven is aqua. I was never good at that in kindergarten. So again, starting in the West and working our way East has been the standard approach. So we'd have the Arden Arcade area west of Watt, South of Marconi in area one, as well as a portion of the city of Sacramento. Area two then is the Northern part of Arden Arcade, all of North Highlands and portion of Carmichael. Area three would be the area, portion of Arden Arcade that is East of Watt, as well as portions of Carmichael. Area four, just a little bit of Carmichael left, and we put that in area four along with Fair Oaks, the portion of Fair Oaks that's west of Sunrise Boulevard and Southeast portion of the city of Citrus Heights. Five would be the most Fair Oaks, all of Gold River and portions of Orangevale and Citrus Heights. Six would be the majority of Orangevale and a little bit of Citrus Heights. And area seven would be the Northern part of Orangevale and the rest of Citrus Heights. Only one sequencing option on this one, you can see there one, five, six, and seven in 2022 and two, three and four in 2024. And in terms of the numbers, 18.47% Latinos citizen voting age population in area one, 12.72% African-American and seven, we'll call it 8% Asian population in area one. Just comparing that to our previous high watermarks, this is just a little bit above, by going to seven areas we're able to obviously make a little bit smaller of an area, and that allows for a little bit more concentration of the communities. And so you can see the citizen voting age population numbers increased slightly by going to seven areas by about a percentage point for the Latino population, virtually the same for the African-American population and about a percentage and a half point more for the Asian population in area one, by using seven areas instead of five. Those are just minor increases, but increase this to point out nonetheless. You can see across the others, they're pretty much the same, right at the district average, some are a little bit below the district average when we go to seven areas. So that's that slide. Go onto scenario two then. Okay. So in this one, we decided to make my life hard and flip the green and the yellow, but so in the yellow area one would be the Northern part of Arden Arcade and then going into North Highlands. Area two would be Southern part of Arden Arcade and the portions of the city of Sacramento. Area three would be the Eastern parts of Arden Arcade going into Carmichael and into Fair Oaks as well. Four would be the Northern portion of Carmichael. Again, that's the blue area around Del Campo High School, and then a small portion of Fair Oaks. And the Southern part of Citrus Heights. Five is all of Fair Oaks that's East of Sunrise, all of Gold River, portions of Orangevale and Citrus Heights. And then we have trustee area six, which is the gold area, which would be Citrus Heights and then area seven, which would be Citrus Heights and Orangevale. I think I got it at all. Only one sequencing option here and that's areas three, five, six and seven in 2022 and areas one, two and four in 2024. And if I'm not mistaken, this might be, this scenario is unique in one factor, I'm just double checking my notes here. This is the only one where all five board members miraculously appear in their own area across all eight options, nope. I'm sorry, yeah, that's correct. So just so happened that we have one scenario where that happened. Again, it wasn't on purpose. If it was on purpose we would have done a better job than some of the other maps, I'm sure. So just wanted to point out that feature to you. Numbers on scenario two, you can see we have two areas then, areas one and two, where our Latino citizen voting age population is a couple percenta
Published sources used on this page
This meeting has been held, but no source-backed decision record is available yet. Agenda items remain proposals.
Canonical record: a36cfbd58af145e4ee0c96a234e98c41. This page changes as stronger artifacts are published; it never overwrites an agenda with minutes.
Publisher tools
